JC found dead

[stuartj]

Originally posted by kang
Say they don’t “prove it” beyond a shadow of a doubt. Proof like that would be hard to come by.

Thats correct. Anything other than 100% would be of no use, and even 100%, incontravertible proof probably just wouldnt do. The Catholic Church alone will turn its formidable intellectual and financial resouces to protecting its franchise, constructing a truth that suits it, and the happy clappers, well they just dont care, praise the lord.

To the "rational" person, it really doesnt matter, except as an intersting, fascinating archelogical artifact. Jesus Christ lived, and died. He's buried somewhere.

Some simply amazing claims made in this thread in answer to laymans questions posed by folk with rudimentary understnading of such things.

[IROC]

Originally posted by stuartj
Thats correct. Anything other than 100% would be of no use, and even 100%, incontravertible proof probably just wouldnt do. The Catholic Church alone will turn its formidable intellectual and financial resouces to protecting its franchise, constructing a truth that suits it, and the happy clappers, well they just dont care, praise the lord.

There's a simple way to settle the whole thing. DNA testing. They have the bones and there are lots of communion wafers out there...

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by stuartj
If these remains cannot be proven to JC, there exists more ( or a) reason to believe JC was the Son of God?

No. I think you may have (possibly innadvertantly?) struck the nail right on the head. It will give you no reason to believe. It will give me no more reason to believe. It is, in essence, a non-event then.

Originally posted by kang
Say they don’t “prove it” beyond a shadow of a doubt. Proof like that would be hard to come by. There will be some probability that it’s true, like 90/10 or 50/50 or 10/90. But even this, the possibility that it is true, casts major doubt on the resurrection. There would be an X% chance that those bones are his, and that he was never resurrected.

It is either true or it is not. Assigning some statistical probability to whether this is true or not accomplishes nothing. Who assigns the number? On what basis? Just another thing to argue about, diluting the argument on a very straightforward "yes" or "no" question.

How would a somewhat arbitrarily asigned probability cast any doubt on anything? I think the only people who are likely to give any such number any weight are those that are looking for evidence of what they feel they already know. Any morsel is good enough in their quest for refuting "evidence". It is clear that nothing definitive will be "proven" here but, by golly, if there is a ten percent chance this might have been him, that will be good enough in some folks' minds to cement their position. We knew it; we just knew it; just a bunch of b.s., see?...

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by stuartj
Well, Jesus did, didnt he in Matthew 21:21 and numerous other verses?

Could be yes, no or maybe if you have cancer.

Is apparently always "no" if you are an amputee.

Why?

Interesting reference Stuart (I think that you meant 21:22 BTW), but you are taking it out of context. That full passage goes like this...

(Note, for those athiests who don't buy into the Bible at all, just skip this post. But since Stuart quoted the Bible to make a point, I'll examine it within the context of the Bible's teachings to understand the point of the passage)

(Matthew 21:18-22) The Fig Tree Withers

Early in the morning as he (Jesus) was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.

When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked.

Jesus replied, "I tell you the truit, if you have faight and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive what you ask for in prayer.

A couple of observations...
- Others on this BBS has suggested that the Fig Tree represents Israel and it's lack of producing "good fruit", and Jesus's curse of the Fig Tree is actually a curse/prediction of the destruction of Jerusalom 30 years later. That's interesting, and possible but personally I think that in this case the fig tree was just a fig tree. Yup, Christians can disagree and neither is necessarily damned as a result.
- Jesus sets two premises: "If you have faith" and "do not doubt". This seems pretty obvious that those without faith or who doubt may fall short. This is consistant with Peter's experience of walking on water -- he started to sink when he had doubts. (For the sake of discussion, let's put the scientific aspects of Jesus and Peter walking on water to the side for a moment, and just consider that example in relation to this passage.)
- Jesus is talking intimately with only his disciples, rather then to a large crowd as he did with the sermon on the mount. He very well could be giving them a foretaste of some of the powers that they would have after Jesus Ascended. The book of Acts describes many occasions of the disciples healing people, and even being released from prison by an earth quake (moving mountains?). It's not clear from the context if verse 22 is aimed at the wider Church, or as I'm suggesting specifically the disciples.

Like I said, for the sake of discussion, if you don't buy in to anything from the Bible, none of this will mean anything and you're welcome to ignore it.

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by IROC
Worded the way you have it above, yes - I think it would take "faith" to assume that science would eventually, but surely, explain something that is currently unknown. It might not. We may never figure it out. The way I see it, though, when faced with something we don't understand, we have two options (maybe more, but for the sake of this discussion only two):

1. Use the scientific method to try and understand that which we do not know in the context of physical laws and processes that we understand and arrive at a hypothesis that explains the phenomenon. This is what scientists do every day and we have made alot of progress using this method.

2. Assume that it is too complex for us to understand and hence there must be a supernatural explanation (the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet comes to mind).

Since there has never been a case of number 2 ending up being correct, I think it is better for us to concentrate on number 1.

Maybe I am not characterizing #2 very well, but maybe you see my point.

Actually IROC, there are many Christians (myself and Francis Collins included) who would agree with you on number 1. Assuming that God put us here with brains, I don't think that he wants us to just lightly brush off opportunities to use them as point 2 suggests.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
No. I think you may have (possibly innadvertantly?) struck the nail right on the head. It will give you no reason to believe. It will give me no more reason to believe. It is, in essence, a non-event then.

...[/i]

I have said as much, 2 or 3 times. Couple of posts up, for example:

But its only a non event for me, as I accept JC died in the manner of very other human in history.

But Christians say he rose, and departed earth. Big issue for you.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by jluetjen
Interesting reference Stuart (I think that you meant 21:22 BTW), but you are taking it out of context. That full passage goes like this...

(Note, for those athiests who don't buy into the Bible at all, just skip this post. But since Stuart quoted the Bible to make a point, I'll examine it within the context of the Bible's teachings to understand the point of the passage)

Yes I did mean 21.22- thanks for the correction.

Math 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

In the context of the whole passage, thats quite unambiguous.

The rest is just more speculation on what JC may or may not have meant. I ilke the bit about special super powers that the dicsipes would have.

Are the Scriptures THE WORD OF GOD, or are they the Word of God*


*clarifications, context and obfuscations included in pack.

Fig trees? This has all been been done with Juniper bushes.

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by stuartj

More broadly however, the notion of JC dying on the cross to atone for our sins. This is an idea we (of Christian background) grow up with. But when you actually stop and think about the idea of God sending His Son as man to be killed- sacrified, so that He (God) could forgive us (His creations) our sins. How does that actually work, the human sacrifice thing?

Yeah Stuart, that is a tough one, and often THE big stumbling block for non-Christians. Fair enough. Here's an illustration I came up with that might help.

The big problem is that (if there is a...) God, the all powerful creator of the universe is over on that side of reality, and we're stuck over here as these puny little creations on a small planet, around a non-discrept star, in a not particularly memerable part of a very average looking spiral galaxy. What could we ever do for him?

Consider this. I've got a '69 911E which is my "baby". My daughters know it is very special to me. I love my daughters (6 and 9 years old by the way) and love to take them for rides in it. My daughters know I love them, but I love them every day and to some degree they also take it for granted since they've never been without my love. If you asked them how they know that I love them, they'd say that I hug them or feed them -- but hey, anyone can do that! So they know it, but they really don't know how much I love them. As far as what can they do for me -- not much since I feed, cloth and shelter them. They only have a few dollars in savings -- what could they ever give me that would matter?

To be honest, they also could never conceive of what it would take to buy my 911, or replace it. I love and trust my daughters, and so one day leave them the keys so thay can play in the car while I do some other stuff. Well, stuff happens, and they start the car and wrap it around a tree. Thankfully they're all right, but now they know that they're in trouble. They just destroyed "Daddy's baby". The fear in their hearts is HUGE!!! They know that I'm going to be angry.

When I find out -- my first reaction is to hug them and be thankful that they're still alive. I am angry, but that is secondary to my love and concern for their well being. The girls know that they deserve a huge spanking along with no TV for the rest of their life! But my response is not what they're expecting -- tell them that I'm upset about the 911, but I'm far happier that they're alive. I can replace the 911, but I can't replace them. Sure they may be grounded, or lose some TV for a little while, but they know that I've forgiven them because I haven't held them responsible for the full value of the 911. After that whole experience, they will have a better understanding of how much I love them. I love them a least enough to forgive them for destroying the 911.

In this analogy, I'm playing the part of God (metaphorically speaking), Jesus is the 911, and my daughters are all of us on Earth. Without the test of having the keys for the 911, there is little the girls could do or not do that would make a difference in our relationship. Jesus (God's one and only Son) was "entrusted" to the would. Unfortunately we "wrapped him around a tree" . Ulp! But God, was able to pick-up the pieces (raise Jesus from the Dead) so that he could come back and tell us that it's OK. He's forgiven us. If God can forgive us for what we did to his Son (and to each other), then now there is a relationship across that great void from our reality to God's reality.

That's how I see it. Maybe not a perfect analogy, but maybe it will be helpful for someone.

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by Stuartj
If these remains cannot be proven to JC, there exists more ( or a) reason to believe JC was the Son of God?

I wish I could suspend my disbelief, I really do, so I could understand the genuineness with which believers can rationalise to support their beliefs. I lack the imagination to do this.

As IROC pointed out, the Emporer has no clothes.

Originally posted by kang
Say they don’t “prove it” beyond a shadow of a doubt. Proof like that would be hard to come by. There will be some probability that it’s true, like 90/10 or 50/50 or 10/90. But even this, the possibility that it is true, casts major doubt on the resurrection. There would be an X% chance that those bones are his, and that he was never resurrected.

You have a point. But the problem with the case at hand (these "Jesus boxes") is that the scientific rigor is so laughably bad that I'm not even in the least concerned. These guys are obviously "Hollywood whores" as someone pointed out earlier, who will do anything to get themselves on TV and sell advertising. They have no understanding of the scientific principles involved in proving what they claim, their grasp of statistics seems to be limited at best and they have professed to have virtually no understanding of the biblical subjects that they claim to have found.

Aside from that, I guess it's an interesting theory.

[Victor]

Originally posted by jluetjen
Yeah Stuart, that is a tough one, and often THE big stumbling block for non-Christians. Fair enough. Here's an illustration I came up with that might help.

The big problem is that (if there is a...) God, the all powerful creator of the universe is over on that side of reality, and we're stuck over here as these puny little creations on a small planet, around a non-discrept star, in a not particularly memerable part of a very average looking spiral galaxy. What could we ever do for him?

Consider this. I've got a '69 911E which is my "baby". My daughters know it is very special to me. I love my daughters (6 and 9 years old by the way) and love to take them for rides in it. My daughters know I love them, but I love them every day and to some degree they also take it for granted since they've never been without my love. If you asked them how they know that I love them, they'd say that I hug them or feed them -- but hey, anyone can do that! So they know it, but they really don't know how much I love them. As far as what can they do for me -- not much since I feed, cloth and shelter them. They only have a few dollars in savings -- what could they ever give me that would matter?

To be honest, they also could never conceive of what it would take to buy my 911, or replace it. I love and trust my daughters, and so one day leave them the keys so thay can play in the car while I do some other stuff. Well, stuff happens, and they start the car and wrap it around a tree. Thankfully they're all right, but now they know that they're in trouble. They just destroyed "Daddy's baby". The fear in their hearts is HUGE!!! They know that I'm going to be angry.

When I find out -- my first reaction is to hug them and be thankful that they're still alive. I am angry, but that is secondary to my love and concern for their well being. The girls know that they deserve a huge spanking along with no TV for the rest of their life! But my response is not what they're expecting -- tell them that I'm upset about the 911, but I'm far happier that they're alive. I can replace the 911, but I can't replace them. Sure they may be grounded, or lose some TV for a little while, but they know that I've forgiven them because I haven't held them responsible for the full value of the 911. After that whole experience, they will have a better understanding of how much I love them. I love them a least enough to forgive them for destroying the 911.

In this analogy, I'm playing the part of God (metaphorically speaking), Jesus is the 911, and my daughters are all of us on Earth. Without the test of having the keys for the 911, there is little the girls could do or not do that would make a difference in our relationship. Jesus (God's one and only Son) was "entrusted" to the would. Unfortunately we "wrapped him around a tree" . Ulp! But God, was able to pick-up the pieces (raise Jesus from the Dead) so that he could come back and that it's OK. He's forgiven us. If God can forgive us for what we did to his Son (and to each other), then now there is a relationship across that great void from our reality to God's reality.

That's how I see it. Maybe not a perfect analogy, but maybe it will be helpful for someone.

That is THE funniest thing I have ever read on pelican. I thank you.

[stuartj]

Did you forget you were omnipotent and omnscient?
John. I appreciate your sincerity and your effort in addressing this. But really. My 13yo boy genius would rip that to shreds.

How does the death of JC expunge mankind's sins?
Does God support human sacrifice?
Why does an omnipotent God need to do any of this?
Why does He need us to worship Him?
The Holy Trinity- did god kill and resurect himself?
And lets not start on start on free will. We'll need another thread,and Im in no mood for St Thomas Aquinas because its beer oclock.

For gods so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that who so ever belieies in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

None of that makes any sense, at any level. Xtians will fall back on the mantra -"we cannot know the mind of god, can we?"

The alterrnate explanation is that this all superstitous nonsense surrounded centuries of gilding the lilly.

As a Christian, I imagine you reject other beliefs. Many Christians think other religions are silly. As Richard Dawkins has said, and he borowed this thought from a well known quote I cant lay my hands on right now...

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by stuartj

How does the death of JC expunge mankind's sins?

It's not so much the death, as the resurrection and forgiveness that provides the expunging. But if God didn't allow himself (or in this case his human personage) to be killed -- the ultimate affront to a living being, then there wouldn't be any crime or sin worthy of the ultimate forgiveness. So without the death, there wouldn't be the forgiveness. Any other crime or sin is trivial by comparison, and would have resulted in a comparably trivial forgiveness.

Does God support human sacrifice?

In the physical sense, the Christian God does not require it as - for example - Baal did (to personify Baal for the sake of conversation). But at a personal level God does ask for sacrifice -- he wants us to sacrifice ourselves out of our love for others by - for example: charity, compassion and forgiveness -- all of which are forms of personal sacrifice. But does the Christian God require that people have their necks slit for him -- no.

Why does an omnipotent God need to do any of this?

I hardly know the mind of my wife, let along God! But the Bibles reports that God is a jealous god. That sounds like a good enough reason for me.

Why does He need us to worship Him?

See above.

The Holy Trinity- did god kill and resurect himself?

God did not kill himself -- people did by their own free will. God merely made himself available for the act by visiting us in the flesh.

And lets not start on start on free will. We'll need another thread,and Im in no mood for St Thomas Aquinas because its beer oclock.

PS: If you're ever in the Boston area, let me know and I'll buy you a Sam Adams. My German Lutheran background has a history discussing theology over a glass or two of good beer.

[IROC]

Originally posted by stuartj
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

This is a very powerful statement. I'm not going to try to find the original quote now, either, but the logic behind it is very insightful.

There have been many gods throughout man's history, right? Let's just take Zeus, for instance. At one time, *many* people fully believed in Zeus' existence. For the Christians out there - do you believe that Zeus exists? Do you think he is (or even was) a real, supernatural entity? If the answer is no (and I hope the answer is no), why not? What reasons do you have for not believing in Zeus? They are logical, rational reasons, right? Believing that Zeus exists makes no sense to you in light of your understanding of the world around you, right? You are totally comfortable stating that you do not believe that Zeus exists, right?

When you fully and honestly contemplate and understand why you do not believe that Zeus exists, you will come to an understanding why there are people out there that doubt the existence of the Christian god. They have the same logical, rational reasons...

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by stuartj

Are the Scriptures THE WORD OF GOD, or are they the Word of God*


*clarifications, context and obfuscations included in pack.

If I understand you correctly, you're asking if I believe in the "Literal interpretation" of the Bible (as the term is generally used by "Fundimentalists" as that term is generally used), or in a more liberal interpretation?

I guess I'd put myself in the middle of those two extremes since I try to consider both when I'm reading the Bible. I also have issues with both extreme views. Each in turn...

Literal Interpretation which includes things like the earth being created in 144 hours, and only 6000 years old and stuff like that.
Personally I'm not sold on that sort of interpretation. The Bible is far to rich and complex of a document to read at such a simplistic level, especially since many claiming "Literal Interpretation" often seem to take it as meaning literal in contemporary English. The middle-ages idea of "Literal Interpretation" meant that the only way to read the Bible was in Hebrew (for the old Testement) and Latin (for the New Testement), and I think that was flawed too since it kept study of they Bible out of reach of the common person. Certainly 90% or more of what is in the Bible can be readily understood in contemporary English, German or whatever. Either way, a common use of "Literal Interpretation" is often used by Athiests who will pick out one verse without considering the context of the whole. For example: Genesis 6:14 says the following.


(Note that the numbers next to the words are a cross reference to the Hebrew text, which I then cross referenced to the Lexicon which is listed below the verse.)

So does this mean that all Jews and Christians should be building a large ship (or at least a small basket per the Hebrew word cross referenced by the number 8392) in our back yards? Nah. That was a specific command which was given to Noah at a certain point in time. Prior to looking this up, I had never known that the Hebrew word used for Noah's ark is actually a different word then was used for the Ark of the Covenant. (Hmmmm.... Interesting!) Anyhow, my point is that specific versus need to be understood within the context of the specific text in the Bible, as well as the Bible as a whole. It also helps if you are going to be literal to take the time to look up the words in their original language and what we know of those words at this time to understand the translation better. I don't believe that an analysis such as this constitutes "clarifications, context and obfuscations".

Liberal Translation which often winds up with people discarding certain passages as not applying to them for X, Y and Z reasons. Without some deeper understanding of the passage, I find it difficult to completely justify this approach. It often winds up just an excuse for doing what a person wants. There are countless examples of this and I'm not going to pick one at this time. But on the other hand, without some understanding of time, place and audiance to which passages were addressed which this approach brings to the table, we'd all wind up with arks or baskets in our back yards.

So that puts me in the middle. I think a person needs to thoughtfully consider both (all) views and then try to execute against their understanding to the best of their abilities.

[Turbo_pro]

I spent a good deal of time contemplating the rationale that people on this thread give for belief, understanding and challenging religion. I've seen intolerance, prejudice, tension and anger.

The struggle in the thread is (in my humble opinion) "what is religion about ? I am not a religious scholar so I only have my limited experience to draw on but as I see it, religion is a path. Life has many paths but religion is a path to a specific state or condition.

From what I can tell, most main stream religion has the same goals. A peaceful heart and a quiet mind. Perhaps this assertion gives credit where no credit is do but that is the nature of my belief. It seems that they all offer a road map for this journey.

Here's the problem. Man has to read the map and interpret the meaning. Give two people the same map and it is not uncommon for them to end up in different places. Don't blame the map maker or the map for those individuals that make a wrong turn. Many here want to blame religion for the wrong choices of those who identify themselves as religious.

God loves us and wants us to be happy and I believe that he offers us the word to guide us ( not drag us) on this journey. He offers us the word in a language we can understand. Throughout history the word has had many faces (Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Zeus' and even those who worship the sun) but all of them have laid out a path to a peaceful heart and a quiet mind. For those who hear "one way" that is the language they can understand. Others may hear a different language but the same message. Understanding this is where tolerence comes into play.

The bible is an example of the road map and it is filled with wonderful anecdotal evidence of what is in store for us along the way. It offers us stories of others who traveled this path and how they selected the road they traveled.

God is in the message and the devil is in the detail.
God has not asked us to help others because he can not help them himself. He asks us to sacrifice ourselves (he leaves to method up to us) because that will help us find that peaceful heart. He illustrates this principle by his own sacrifice, the crucifixion of his son. In this act he also illustrates his love for us. Allowing the horrific dead of his son to enhance our belief could only be describe as love.
God does not offer us eternal life as a carrot to lure us to the right path but to help us quiet our very busy minds. Answer the question "what's next?" and life become about "what now?'"

If digging into the details of a map brings you a quiet mind, continue to dig. It looks to me like challenging the details, stirs the mind with the questions that can not be answered with science or logic and that stirring leads to fear, distrust and envy. My experience is that atheism rarely promotes either of my stated goals. Do atheists in this thread exhibit a peaceful heart or a quite mind?
Those who challenge religion rarely seem at peace in their own skin although quite often ridicule those who are comfortable in their belief.

I know my thoughts on this subject are simple minded and offer very little proof of anything but for me they needed to be said.

One last thought: It has been my experience that when a person of faith says "try this, I think you'll like it" he/she is not saying "I don't like who you are" he/she is saying "I love who I am and I want that for you".
Those who say "I need to change you" have just misinterpreted the word. This is not evil just misguided. You can't blame the word for mans flaws or shortcomings.
.

[IROC]

John - your post is an excellent example of one of the things I have always struggled with. That is - every person seems to make their own decisions as to how to interpret the bible. What works for some people does not work for others and so they interpret or disregard things to suit their needs or particular beliefs.

I see this as a fault. If the bible is truly the inspired word of god, why didn't he write it in such a way to avoid all of this confusion? If the bible is not meant to be interpreted in one, absolutely correct way, it seems that might mean it is intended to be loosely interpreted to fit one's particular beliefs. After all, that is exactly what happens all over the world every day.

If that is the case (as it certainly appears), then where does the interpretation end? Who is the absolute authority on what the bible says? Rhetorical question, I realize...

[jluetjen]

Why didn't God write the Bible in plain English/German/Greek/Hebrew/etc??? Since God's native language is "Godish" I guess, and none of us is equipped to understand that, I guess he picked some people who spoke the local languages to transcribe it.

I remember watching an American movie in Germany years ago when they were usually translated with sub-titles. It was funny how a whole sentance would sometimes get condensed down to 3 or 4 words. Speaking some German I can tell you that the got the gist of the American English, but not necessarily the subtlety. My favorite anquished translations I've found in Chinese airline magazines where it's pretty obvious the translators learned English as a second language from someone for whom it was a second language. They're often accurate -- but funny. You really get a sense of how different the Chinese language is to English.

[IROC]

Originally posted by Turbo_pro
My experience is that atheism rarely promotes either of my stated goals. Do atheists in this thread exhibit a peaceful heart or a quite mind?
Those who challenge religion rarely seem at peace in their own skin although quite often ridicule those who are comfortable in their belief.
.

We need to talk. :>) For those who know me personally (not many on this board, unfortunately) I am probably a good example of someone who has a peaceful heart and a quiet mind. I am actually very comfortable in my beliefs. I had a "religious experience" years ago that led to my lack of belief. That was the point where I achieved peace of mind, ironically.

Good post, though. I think your points are valid for many people.

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by IROC
We need to talk. :>) For those who know me personally (not many on this board, unfortunately) I am probably a good example of someone who has a peaceful heart and a quiet mind. I am actually very comfortable in my beliefs. I had a "religious experience" years ago that led to my lack of belief. That was the point where I achieved peace of mind, ironically.

Good post, though. I think your points are valid for many people.

If this is true, then I envy your success, for I only experience the fleeting moments of peace and quiet. You heard the word you needed and God's magic (I use the word magic because to may not believe in miracles) has worked in your life. Unfortunately this thread shows many who have not.


BTW: A lack of belief is not the same as disbelief. Perhaps agnostic, rather than atheist would describe you better?
I am not judging by label (far be it may place to label anyone), just a question

[Az911]

Originally posted by hytem
A lot of people think that's her, to his right, in DaVinci's Last Supper. It certainly looks like a woman. I also think that might be MM in the Mona Lisa, if DaVinci was really wrapped up in this stuff.

The women in the Mona Lisa is Lisa Gherardin the wife of wealthy Florentine businessman Francesco del Giocondo. Mona was a common Italian contraction of madonna, meaning my lady, the equivalent of the English Madam, so the title means Madam Lisa.