124 replies to this topic

[GraniteJJ]

But finding Jesus body doesn't mean he didn't resurrect. It just means that he died. But he could have died years after resurrecting, instead of ascending to the heavens. Or something.

Anyway, there are some good historical proofs that make me think Jesus' resurrection is a historical event

Um...yes. It kind of would. The Biblical story says that the Mary's (in their little posse) were out for a stroll, and the tomb was empty. Because he had resurrected. It's all part of the Bible. He resurrected in body and spirit, and ascended to heaven.

How on Earth could he have died years after resurrecting instead of ascending into the heavens? Do you realize how much that alternative would destroy Christianity? And are you trying to say Jesus came back to life but stuck around for a little while...as some sort of zombie messiah?

No. He needed to die, resurrect and ascend to have died for everyone's sins. That's the way it goes.

And what historical proofs are these? The Bible, as a religious text, obviously supports it (it would have to). In what ancient record (outside of the Bible) does it say "Yes. Jesus. We buried him. And he rose from the dead. Ascended to heaven. Died for our sins. Etc."

Now keep in mind I don't believe in Christianity. It sounds like a fairy tale to me. But for the sake of argument, I'm willing to hear out what historical proofs you have, young Arturo - he who does not understand the importance of the ascension.

[Arturo]

Um...yes. It kind of would. The Biblical story says that the Mary's (in their little posse) were out for a stroll, and the tomb was empty. Because he had resurrected. It's all part of the Bible. He resurrected in body and spirit, and ascended to heaven.

How on Earth could he have died years after resurrecting instead of ascending into the heavens? Do you realize how much that alternative would destroy Christianity? And are you trying to say Jesus came back to life but stuck around for a little while...as some sort of zombie messiah?

No. He needed to die, resurrect and ascend to have died for everyone's sins. That's the way it goes.

If Ascenssion is such an important event why is only mentioned in Mark and Luke? Neither John nor Matthew, not even the Acts and Paul (maybe I am wrong about Paul, though what I found said nothing about it...) mention it. And Mark just makes a four-word section. So it can't be that important.

They just say is that he appeared many times for a period of time. But nothing about ascenssions.

And what historical proofs are these? The Bible, as a religious text, obviously supports it (it would have to). In what ancient record (outside of the Bible) does it say "Yes. Jesus. We buried him. And he rose from the dead. Ascended to heaven. Died for our sins. Etc."

Now keep in mind I don't believe in Christianity. It sounds like a fairy tale to me. But for the sake of argument, I'm willing to hear out what historical proofs you have, young Arturo - he who does not understand the importance of the ascension.

Let me elaborate on this. There are proofs of two things:

1-The Apostles didn't invent the Resurrection:

Because if they had invented them, they wouldn't have said the first witnesses were women, because their testimony had no significance.
Because of their renewed faith after the Resurrection. Do you really think a group of fishers would invent such a hoax? They must, at least have had a mystical experience.
Because if Paul hadn't had an experience of Resurrected Christ, his converssion would remain unexplainable.

2-The Tomb was empty:

Because the Gospels say it.
Because it seems the Jews said it.

[SOAP]

Muhammed never claimed to be God in human form.

Exactly.

The resurrection puts Jesus on a whole new divine playing field, where he is really the only player. 100% human, 100% God. Without the resurrection, Jesus becomes...well, he does become what other religions acknowledge him to be. A rabbi, or a prophet. And before long, he is lumped in with everyone else. And Christianity becomes...less of a religion.

He still had a mortal body and I think he was fully aware of it. Jesus was not just the Son of God, he was the Son Man. God in the form of a human being. The human part can die but the part of him that's of God ascends into heaven but not before finishing some unfinished business. If he was God he could probably just reinhabit his dead body like how he brought Lazarus' soul back from the dead but then leave it once he was done using it. I don't think where Jesus was going, he'd need his physical body.

Edited by SOAP, 04 March 2007 - 02:40 PM.

[Steel Samurai]

If Ascenssion is such an important event why is only mentioned in Mark and Luke? Neither John nor Matthew, not even the Acts and Paul (maybe I am wrong about Paul, though what I found said nothing about it...) mention it. And Mark just makes a four-word section. So it can't be that important.

They just say is that he appeared many times for a period of time. But nothing about ascenssions.

Did you even bother trying to look them up?

9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

If Jesus had simply been resurrected and died again, it would not have shown his power over death, but would have shown that even God cannot have power over the grave. Also, since when is it acceptable to dismiss scripture simply because there's a new scientific discovery (of doubtful veracity at that) which seemingly contradicts what the Bible says? Time and time again archaeologists have found evidence which seemed to go against the Bible but later turned out to support it.

[SOAP]

Guys guys guys. It probably stands to reason that they did have an ossuary prepared for Jesus' remains since in the bible they were on their way to collect his remains when the whole resurrection scene happened. Doesn't necessarily mean those are his bone in the box. With Jesus' body gone by whatever means, they're not going to waste a perfectly good vacant box so they toss someone else' remains in there, possibly a cousin or a nephew. Who knows.

[Arturo]

Did you even bother trying to look them up?

Yes, I did. But I was in a hurry and didn't see it. I found it strange, since it is mentioned in Luke, and they seem to share a common author(s).

If Jesus had simply been resurrected and died again, it would not have shown his power over death, but would have shown that even God cannot have power over the grave. Also, since when is it acceptable to dismiss scripture simply because there's a new scientific discovery (of doubtful veracity at that) which seemingly contradicts what the Bible says? Time and time again archaeologists have found evidence which seemed to go against the Bible but later turned out to support it.

The very event contradicts science, because a body can't just disappear like that. That goes against the fundamental laws of Physics.

[Veteran]

Now keep in mind I don't believe in Christianity. It sounds like a fairy tale to me. But for the sake of argument, I'm willing to hear out what historical proofs you have, young Arturo - he who does not understand the importance of the ascension.

Please don't be patronising.

[TheAvengerLever]

Jesus and Mary were very common names back then. Does no one else realize this?

[SOAP]

Jesus and Mary were very common names back then. Does no one else realize this?

Yes. It's said in the article. We can read ya know.

[MikePetersSucks]

Time and time again archaeologists have found evidence which seemed to go against the Bible but later turned out to support it.

Like what?

[arunma]

Like what?

King Hezekiah's Siloam tunnel? OK, well that one never was considered to refute the Bible at any point in time...

[Arturo]

Yes. It's said in the article. We can read ya know.

It is not that sure. There are many Marys in the New Testament, but just one in the Old one (miriam, the sister of Moses) so it isn't taht sure that it was a common name.

[Reflectionist]

The very event contradicts science, because a body can't just disappear like that. That goes against the fundamental laws of Physics.

Because everyone knows that Jesus, the supposed all powerful God, is bound to the laws humans, His creation*, came up with.

* - I said creation, doesn't mean literal. give me a break.

Edited by Reflectionist, 06 March 2007 - 11:19 AM.

[Arturo]

But taht is not physically possible. A person having supernatural powers is something that goes against science. Literal Christianism is contradicted by sciences many many times.

And I am Christian.

[Reflectionist]

But taht is not physically possible. A person having supernatural powers is something that goes against science. Literal Christianism is contradicted by sciences many many times.

And I am Christian.

It's not physically possible according to who? The CREATOR OF PEOPLE? Or Some PERSON that CREATED SCIENCE?

Science is a very specific thing. You can't apply science to anything and everything. Least of all History and things that don't apply to OUR science as defined as the Planet Earth.

You can't put everything on physics, because physics itself is relative even to the planet you're dealing with.

And you're not making a very good case for being a Christian. Considering being a Christian means you believe what the Bible tells you. And if you think you can just pick and choose what to believe, what makes you think the rest of it is not bullshit?

How can you be a Christian? That religion bends over backwards upon the assumption that Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead.

If you don't believe that, then, looks like Jesus was, to you, certainly not God, and thus makes him some miniscule teacher that was no different than Moses or Abraham.

Which makes you a Muslim, really.

***EDIT - no offense to muslims or their beliefs, I just said that because of their views on Jesus as a good moral teacher. Sorry for the confusion. ***

Edited by Reflectionist, 06 March 2007 - 07:51 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

The whole concept of Christianity relies solely on the basis that Jesus rose from the dead. Without a ressurection we're screwed. This has been said.

Comparing Jesus to science is a big mistake. Besides, science hasn't done anything to change my life, or the lives of countless others. It's made them bored as hell. Honestly, who really cares was a diatom is?

(Still, thank God for medicines)

Christianity on the other hand, has changed peoples lives. The theories of science can't possibly hold up to that. Judaism is just routine, and Islam only kills people (no...Venger is not saying that all muslims are radicals) But the Muslims who are radicals are the ones in the seats of power.

[MikePetersSucks]

It's not physically possible according to who? The CREATOR OF PEOPLE? Or Some PERSON that CREATED SCIENCE?

Science is a very specific thing. You can't apply science to anything and everything. Least of all History and things that don't apply to OUR science as defined as the Planet Earth.

You can't put everything on physics, because physics itself is relative even to the planet you're dealing with.

And you're not making a very good case for being a Christian. Considering being a Christian means you believe what the Bible tells you. And if you think you can just pick and choose what to believe, what makes you think the rest of it is not bullshit?

How can you be a Christian? That religion bends over backwards upon the assumption that Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead.

If you don't believe that, then, looks like Jesus was, to you, certainly not God, and thus makes him some miniscule teacher that was no different than Moses or Abraham.

Which makes you a Muslim, really.

***EDIT - no offense to muslims or their beliefs, I just said that because of their views on Jesus as a good moral teacher. Sorry for the confusion. ***

Some guy didn't make science. It was OBSERVED and NAMED by multiple PEOPLE over the history of the entire human race.

And yes, everything can be applied to science. That's what it's for. Neither did Arturo ever say that he didn't believe in the Ressurection. He just said it disobeyed science. Love how you totally cast the first stone and all that. You're not making a very good case for being a Christian.

And, FYI, He can't be a Muslim unless he embraces Muhammad. Everyone from Atheists to Zen Monks think he was a good teacher.

[arunma]

The very event contradicts science, because a body can't just disappear like that. That goes against the fundamental laws of Physics.

I'll make the physics proclamations, thank you.

[GraniteJJ]

How can this conversation still continue for so long?

The fact of the matter is:

1. The Ascension is important to Christianity. It is one of those defining points for the religion.

2. This evidence, like so many others, cannot disprove the existence of God, nor the divinity of Jesus. It is not like we have DNA evidence of Jesus on file, and we're going to CSI our way to the answers. You cannot disprove a faith with empirical evidence, because there is nothing empirical about faith. What are you comparing? Old dusty texts to old dusty bones? There are no answers here either way.

[Reflectionist]

Some guy didn't make science. It was OBSERVED and NAMED by multiple PEOPLE over the history of the entire human race.

And yes, everything can be applied to science. That's what it's for. Neither did Arturo ever say that he didn't believe in the Ressurection. He just said it disobeyed science. Love how you totally cast the first stone and all that. You're not making a very good case for being a Christian.

And, FYI, He can't be a Muslim unless he embraces Muhammad. Everyone from Atheists to Zen Monks think he was a good teacher.

Kind of sounds like you don't know what the phrase 'cast the first stone means,' because if you did, you must believe that I think I'm without sin... You know, 'He who is without sin cast the first stone,' but really, I had an opinion, and Arturo has another opinion. I stated that his opinion was kind of illogical, and then you accuse me of trying to be... sinless?

And before I go on, I know already I'm going to get flak from using the word 'illogical' to describe science, but that means that if you had created the world, and had complete dominion over it, do you think the laws of physics you applied to it would apply to you? Don't you think you could change them at will?

And about the muslim thing, shut up. Really. Like I care what muslims believe? Like I care what atheists believe? I don't care, I was just making a generalization, and chose muslim because they're the ones that seem to be on Christianity's Shitlist, so to speak.

EDIT - Also, looks like arunma doesn't see anything wrong with the resurrection or the ascension, and seeing as how he's the physics guy, it's kind of strange that I would get flak for having the same stance on it as him. Now, you, MPS, are 17 years old and think you know more than arunma does about physics. I can deduct that, by the way you stated that Arturo's assumption of the feasiblity of the ascension is right. And arunma, still a physics graduate, does not.

Interesting, to say the least.

Edited by Reflectionist, 07 March 2007 - 11:49 AM.

[GraniteJJ]

Kind of sounds like you don't know what the phrase 'cast the first stone means,' because if you did, you must believe that I think I'm without sin... You know, 'He who is without sin cast the first stone,' but really, I had an opinion, and Arturo has another opinion. I stated that his opinion was kind of illogical, and then you accuse me of trying to be... sinless?

And before I go on, I know already I'm going to get flak from using the word 'illogical' to describe science, but that means that if you had created the world, and had complete dominion over it, do you think the laws of physics you applied to it would apply to you? Don't you think you could change them at will?

And about the muslim thing, shut up. Really. Like I care what muslims believe? Like I care what atheists believe? I don't care, I was just making a generalization, and chose muslim because they're the ones that seem to be on Christianity's Shitlist, so to speak.

EDIT - Also, looks like arunma doesn't see anything wrong with the resurrection or the ascension, and seeing as how he's the physics guy, it's kind of strange that I would get flak for having the same stance on it as him. Now, you, MPS, are 17 years old and think you know more than arunma does about physics. I can deduct that, by the way you stated that Arturo's assumption of the feasiblity of the ascension is right. And arunma, still a physics graduate, does not.

Interesting, to say the least.

I don't think it is suitable to equate arunma's degree in physics and math to an ultimate proof that the ascension and resurrection are physically possible or even plausible. Arunma is also a very devout Christian. And so, his beliefs tend to mesh with his scientific backgrounds to believe that such things are compatible. To the same extent, a secular scientist might believe the contrary.

The only thing that arunma's agreement with the unity between ascension, resurrection, and physics shows is that arunma believes that physics and the miracles of Christ are compatible. That's it.

[SL the Pyro]

Yeah. I have to say, even if the resurrection was a hoax, would they really bury the body and mark the grave? Not very convincing.

"Here lies Jesus. But I thought he was resurrected."

"Shit, they're on to us. Why did we cleverly label the grave? It could have been the Tomb of the Unknown Jew, but no. We had to name names. Dammit!"

When will people learn that we're never going to find concrete evidence either way. Unless God jumps out of the sky and says "Religion is true" we will never know for certain. You've just got to have faith.

I am afraid I will have to agree with GraniteJJ. No one knows for certain what the truth is; we just have to believe.

[MikePetersSucks]

Kind of sounds like you don't know what the phrase 'cast the first stone means,' because if you did, you must believe that I think I'm without sin... You know, 'He who is without sin cast the first stone,' but really, I had an opinion, and Arturo has another opinion. I stated that his opinion was kind of illogical, and then you accuse me of trying to be... sinless?

I used the quote because you were acting pretty UnChristian by judging his worth as a Christian.

And before I go on, I know already I'm going to get flak from using the word 'illogical' to describe science, but that means that if you had created the world, and had complete dominion over it, do you think the laws of physics you applied to it would apply to you? Don't you think you could change them at will?

No one ever said God was bound by the Laws of Physics. It was only said that the deed was impossible according to the Laws of Physics, so the act of God breaking them is proof of Christ's divinity and whatnot.

And about the muslim thing, shut up. Really. Like I care what muslims believe? Like I care what atheists believe? I don't care, I was just making a generalization, and chose muslim because they're the ones that seem to be on Christianity's Shitlist, so to speak.

Wow. Looks like I hit a sore spot. Fascist.

EDIT - Also, looks like arunma doesn't see anything wrong with the resurrection or the ascension, and seeing as how he's the physics guy, it's kind of strange that I would get flak for having the same stance on it as him. Now, you, MPS, are 17 years old and think you know more than arunma does about physics. I can deduct that, by the way you stated that Arturo's assumption of the feasiblity of the ascension is right. And arunma, still a physics graduate, does not.

I'm sorry? I didn't make any damn claims about the Laws of Physics other than that they exist without humans having to observe them. You need to pull your head out of your ass big time.

[Reflectionist]

No one ever said God was bound by the Laws of Physics. It was only said that the deed was impossible according to the Laws of Physics, so the act of God breaking them is proof of Christ's divinity and whatnot.

Should've said that in the first place. It would've saved you a lot of trouble typing insults that I don't really care about, man.

By the way, I never said Muslims were on my shitlist, I just said some people who are Christians do. But then again, those people are also really really really Republican...

And, let me pull my head out of my ass so I can put on my fascist hat. :-p

Edited by Reflectionist, 07 March 2007 - 05:35 PM.

[GraniteJJ]

Should've said that in the first place. It would've saved you a lot of trouble typing insults that I don't really care about, man.

By the way, I never said Muslims were on my shitlist, I just said some people who are Christians do. But then again, those people are also really really really Republican...

And, let me pull my head out of my ass so I can put on my fascist hat. :-p

Guys. Mellow out. Let's cease all the talk about various heads in various asses, and continue to discuss and debate like mature and responsible young adults/regular adults/seniors (if any of you are 65+).

So, let's all kiss and make up, and get back to business people. How can we dislike political figures for squabbling like children if we resort to the same tactics? Now everybody cowboy up and lets move on.

[Arturo]

EDIT - Also, looks like arunma doesn't see anything wrong with the resurrection or the ascension, and seeing as how he's the physics guy, it's kind of strange that I would get flak for having the same stance on it as him. Now, you, MPS, are 17 years old and think you know more than arunma does about physics. I can deduct that, by the way you stated that Arturo's assumption of the feasiblity of the ascension is right. And arunma, still a physics graduate, does not.

Interesting, to say the least.

Resurrection contradicts a fundamental Law of Physics, that is the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter (or whatever it is cxalled). A body can't come back to life without energy. That is something arunma knows. But taht has like.... nothing to do with what I was saying.

I am Christian and believe in the Resurrection of Christ, though just in a spiritual way. I am too scientifical to believe he jsut resurrected phyisically. What is important for me is that he defeated death and maniffested to the apostles. No matter how... And I understand that some people think sciences can be wrong. But you just can't say that doesn't go against the Laws of Physics because it si wrong.ñ Energy can'ta ppear from no where, and matter can't disappear. That is just a scientifiocal law. I don't say God can't do that. I say that is anti-scientifical.

[Veteran]

I am too scientifical to believe he jsut resurrected phyisically. What is important for me is that he defeated death and maniffested to the apostles. No matter how...

But not too scientifical to disbelieve spiritual manifestation?

[Fyxe]

And about the muslim thing, shut up. Really. Like I care what muslims believe? Like I care what atheists believe? I don't care, I was just making a generalization, and chose muslim because they're the ones that seem to be on Christianity's Shitlist, so to speak.

Ah, good to see that Jesus' teachings still live on.

Sarcasm, jus so ja nuw.

[Arturo]

But not too scientifical to disbelieve spiritual manifestation?

That is not difficult at all. Hallucination, maybe? Or maybe Jesus wasn't completely dead, just like it sometimes happens to some people that come back o consciousness AFTER BURIED.

In my opinion, God acts by using natural laws, wiothout ever breaking them.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Or maybe it was a fabrication, like the account of how there was three hours of darkness over the land when Jesus was crucified. Strange, how there was no record of this event outside of the Gospels, hm?