nota:
You've made comments on some of my examples, but not given any answers to the direct questions / comments I made, such as:

1. You seem to judge the whole world of Christianity based on the stereotype. Generally speaking, ( :D ) stereotypes are not a true reflection of a group of people. Similarly, the actions of SOME people in a peoples group doesn't necessarily reflect the actions and the beliefs of the whole group.

2. Just because President Bush is a Christian, that doesn't mean that all Christians would govern like he does.

3. Just because there are televangelists who exploit "the system" and fool people into supporting them, that doesn't mean there are good, honest to goodness Christian folk out there, including some very humble, hard-working pastors, missionaries, and Christian workers who more closely adhere to Christ's message.

I suppose you don't have to be a Christian to be narrowminded. :eek:

-Z-man.

I've watched a couple of "The Naked Archeologist" episodes and find them almost laughably sloppy in their scholarly rigor. Two examples...

1) A recent episode had Jacobovici visiting what he claimed to be the cave where John the Baptist apparently lived, preached and baptised people. Interesting. I had heard of this but never seen anything in detail. On that episode, Jacobovici shows up at the site and then shares with us that the Jewish Antiquities officials couldn't make and had to reschedule. He then promptly crawls under the fence passed the obvious "closed" sign and trespasses he way down to the site. When the door is locked, he convinces his (slightly smaller) camera man to climb over the gate and essentially break into the site. He then proceeds to "analyse" the site from outside the gate while the cameraman films from inside. What a hack!!!

2) Watching the video clips on the Newsweek site, Jacobovici admits on camera that he thought "Mary Magdaline" was a proper name, when even the slightest bit of research (or maybe opening up a Bible and actually reading the passages regarding her first-hand) would have revealed that her name was Mary and she was from Magdala, much like the carpenter who was executed on the cross was generally referred to as Jesus (the Greek version of Josua since the Gospels were generally written in Greek) of Nazareth or occasionally "Jesus, the son of Joseph". Aside from Pontious Pilate, I'm not sure if any of the other charactors in the Bible were referred to in the modern fashion with a given name, and a family name.

You'd think that if you were trying to prove or dis-prove a certain historical document, that you'd at least take the time to read it and research it a bit. If you're too lazy to read it, he could of at least consulted with someone who has -- for example John Dominic Crossan (hardly my favorite biblical historian BTW, but an exponentially better scholar then Jacobovici!http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/shake.gif).

I'm still waiting to hear how she and Jesus were elevated to the level of Jewish royalty. As I pointed out earlier, and you show in detail, that's a neat trick with Mary since we don't really know who she was.

1 kinda hard to know the whole world of Christianity
what I do know of this is, the over all history of the church
mostly the church of rome thru the major western protestants and their effects on others
as few in the western tradision pay attenion to the orthodox be they greek / russian syrian or egyptian coptic or minor cults like gostic or cathars and a whole lot of other ones
and when the mass of catholics donot rize up and depose the pope one must think they sorta support the actions by him, so share the blame for his actions like the murder of the cathars

2 no and most have respected the separation of church and state
and I feel he does not, and so those christians that support him share the blame there

3 I hear of very little being done to stop the polution of the airwaves with christian televangelists but show a tit
and the same good christians go nuts
in my perfect world I would like more tits and less begging by televangelists on tv
not to start in on the hate they spred
so where are these ''good, honest to goodness Christian folk out there, including some very humble, hard-working pastors, missionaries, and Christian workers who more closely adhere to Christ's message''. when it comes to important stuff like unjust wars based on lies?
or womans rights?
or following JC comand of one shirt and no money to spred my word?
one would think they care more about a tit
then alot of other real problems

:confused:

I've often wondered why I was having a hard time following the things that you write. But given your ability (or lack thereof) to construct a simple logical sentance, I'm beginning to understand the difficulties you have grasping more complex logical constructions. SmileWavy

Hmm - seems to me that much of what you believe about Christianity is based on the Roman Catholic faith. I am not here to pick apart the RC church, but bear in mind that Roman Catholicism is only one branch of what is generally known as Christianity.

For the record, I am Protestant by faith (Christian Missionary Alliance is the official 'branch' of the church I attend). More specifically, I do call myself simply a "believer in Christ" or a "born again" Christian.

Unfortunately, the born again label these days is given a bad name. But in the Biblical sense of the definition, "Born again" means that I have trusted Christ as my personal savior and through Him, I am born again. (If you wish, I can discuss this process in more detail - just PM me...)

Mere speculation on your side. I can easily say the same for Muslims that live in Afganistan - that ALL Muslims that live there MUST believe the same thing that the Taliban believes. And that notion is utterly untrue. Same applies here - not all Christians in the USA, even the ones that support Bush today have the same views as he does.

There are more difficult to find. You see, those who have taken up God's calling to serve him with "one shirt and no money" have also been called to be humble servants. They are the ones that blend into the background, and continue to serve God by following His command to love everyone and help everyone. You won't find their work being proclaimed from the mountain top or posted on a website that gets 1,000,000 hits a day: that goes against their purpose in life. Some of these people actually live in countries where Christianity is illegal, and as such, must live in secret. Others live in remote parts of the world where the internet is unheard of. Still others live in American suburbia - living by example - helping others around them. Because of their humble servant attitude, they are difficult to find. But they are out there - and they are the Christians that are carrying out God's message to the world.

-Z-man.

If it indeed turns out that the remains of Your Personal Saviour have been located in a burial cave in Jerusalem, what then?

This isn't the first time the Deity of Christ was questioned, and it won't be the last.

So far, there has been no evidence that can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ was NOT the Son of God. I am confident that this new finding will also be unable to do so.

However, if indeed it proves my faith to be wrong, I will need to re-evaluate my belief system. Until then, my faith in Christ is not shaken. Stirred, maybe, but not shaken. ;)

-Z-man.

In my earlier post explaining the pretty glaring issues with Jacobovici's "archeology", I neglected to reference the Newsweek web site that I don't think others may not have seen yet. He sure comes across as pretty clueless in the video clips.

Jacobovici
http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/dom.gif

as roman catholic has the longest history
and distroyed most of the other sub cults
intill the protestant reform they are the big fish
then the major protestant cults some state sponcered
and most if not all of them have sub cults
so it is very eazy for a modern christian to say them not us
point is not the very minor differences
but the fact that there are so many sub cults
shows the lack of the claimed holy spirit
only man made rules and belief
would allow so many sub cults

and the "one shirt and no money" rule was NOT an OPTION
that was the way JC said to spred the word for all who would follow him

David Koresh claimed to be the son of god. We all know he wasn’t, but can you prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? Can you prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist?

LOL. There is a fundamental problem with your logic as applied here. I'll leave you to work out what it is.

Iambic pentameter makes for wonderful poetry, but torturous BB posts, unless your name is John Donne.


An attempt at punctuation would assist greatly also.

It's barely iambic pentameter. What it is, is really hard on the eyes. Good writers use punctuation and gramar to assist the the reader. the ee cummings and John Donnes of the worls are master because they can break the rules, not because they break them.

Yes, thank you, I think that was the point I was trying to make.

Uh...it's called "faith" for a reason.

There is not supposed to be a big cosmic gun pointed at anyone's head.

BTW - I am a Christian - and a liberal. Not all Christians exist on the right wing fringe. But loudmouth, egomaniacal ones seem to. Not sure if that truly qualifies, though.

Faith can be defined as the ability to believe things for which there is no material evidence.

Its odd that somebody who will accept it on this faith that, for example, god exists, JC was the son of god, that he has a persaonal saviour who will alter the laws of the cosmos on his behalf- but then demands incontravertible proof that JC was NOT the Son of God.

Cherry.

Gotcha. I guess that could be chalked up to human nature.

Stuart - you asked me how I deal with this new possibility of the bones of Christ. I kept my comments short since I didn't think anyone would want to hear my struggles with my faith in Christ, but here goes nothing...

Years ago, I really struggled with my faith. I was going through some very difficult person times that really shook the foundations of not only my faith, but my very being. I spend many a tearful day coming to grips with myself, and many other days shaking my fist at everyone including God.

Shortly after that experience, I really, really began to doubt that God even exsists. I started to question all those Bible accounts, and compared them with what 'scientific evidence' there was about evolution, and the origins of the world. So I searched and searched for the meaning to life, the universe, and everything.

I did not exclude the possibility that God doesn't exsist, and that my faith was not worth anything. I carefully considered that idea the closest. Yes, I did a lot of reading, self-examination, and 'soul searching.'

The only conclusion that I came to, no matter what avenue to searched and examined was this: God does most certainly exist. He is real, and He is an active God with whom I can have a personal relationship with. The exciting part of my 'quest' was that it only brought me closer to God. And contrary to what you may think, He didn't strike me down with a lightning bolt - rather, He encourages man to question Him, to study the alternatives, to come to our own conclusions. Indeed, we are not puppets or robots that He controls - He has given us the free will to obey or disobey.

Now some of you may question how far I went in my quest - that is fine. I know that I shook the very foundations of my faith - I questioned everything. My conclusions may not be what you expected, but they are what I believe, not what you want me to believe.

Oh, and by the way, my quest is unfinished - I continue to question, seek, analyze my faith - while I have faith in God, He did not create me as a narrow minded fool, but rather a human with intelligence to decide for my own what I believe.

Hopefully that sheds some light upon what I mean by not finding evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt about the non-exsistence of Christ.


That said, allow me to get back to the subject at hand, namely the bones of Christ. Logic would dictate that one of two groups of people would have buried the bones of Christ - His followers, or His enemies. He was very controversial in His time - a radical Man with a message. He polarized the people around him -- there was no one 'neutral' who was neither for nor against Jesus. Thus, only friend or foe would have buried Him.

Now let's say that Christ was just a man. If I were one of His followers that proclaimed that He was risen from the dead, why would I make sure to bury Him in such a way that He could be identified later on in life and the whole resurrection event could be determined to be a big lie? No sir, if I wanted to propegate such a lie, I would make sure that the remains of Jesus would be unidentifiable. I would probably scatter his remains - maybe have His body cremated or his bones buried in a mass tomb to make His remains indistinguishable amongst many others.

Now on the other side, if I were an emeny of Christ, not only would I bury His body, I would also ensure that EVERYONE in that age and all ages to come would know for certain where the remains of this Jesus was. According to the recent news articles, it seems this tomb was just discovered some 30 years ago. So if enemies of Jesus buried Him, they really didn't do that good a job of making sure it was a known fact that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

So what if someone 'neutral' buried Christ? The Romans were meticulous record keepers -- wouldn't they have kept a close eye on this crucifiction, and made sure everyone knew where the final resting place of Christ was, regardless of who buried him?

So initially, to me, it seems this whole bones of Jesus doesn't hold a whole lot of H2O. I do need to research this article a bit more...

Sorry for the lengthy post,
-Zoltan.

Gee...I'm trying to remember the first time I heard, in the popular media, that "God is dead".