Jump to content

James Cameron Finds Jesus


Recommended Posts

I think I set the o/u way too high. Damn me for giving the benefit of the doubt.1. Your claim still isn't backed up by any evidence. Bible =/= evidence that Christianity is absolute truth. Noah's ark? Impossible. We could go on and on.2. What the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about how I said a person making a claim has to back it up? Even if you are, who knows what you're saying?3. "And don't even start with the nonsense that I am claiming there is no god." Again, knowledge in English would let you know that I recognize you haven't gone to that area yet and that I'm warning you not to.4. The fact that we are all living here is not evidence. Clock designer argument has been debunked ever since it existed.And I am left with nothing? You have to be the dumbest one yet to cross these forums... who knows... I must be newer. Can any of the old regulars tell me if there is anyone worse then him?
Again...i find it humorous to read your posts. Its like you try to make yourself sound smart but yet come off so ignorant. 1. Noahs Ark impossible? interesting and laughable..you know why so we will leave it at that.2. Still avoid having to answer up for anything you say...If you believe the titans are real..then good for you..doesnt mean you have knowledge of this...but ill let you look that up to...3. Again please stick to the topic...If i recall from my last post i said:
3. Where exactly in my post did I say you were claiming no God? Take another look if you need to. In fact youll see that i actually agreed with you on all ur theories you tried to use against me.
Where did i say you dont believe in God? please learn to read. The rest of your sentence makes no sense...if you talkin about the philosophical definition of english then you are way out of ur league...you try to act like you know what you want but so far you fail to even come close to a basic understanding4. "Fact that we are not here is not evidence" Again humorous and ignorant on ur part. The very fact that we are here is evidence of something occuring. Was it an intelligent designer or randomness...we dont know but b/c we are here there is the option...My problem is that i felt you were smarter than you actually were. You acted like you wanted to try using some philosophy and i assumed you understood what i was saying. I was wrong to assume that about you and i am sorry.Please feel free to continue not answering questions and using personal attacksEdit: I think the biggest problem for you so far is that I am willin to concede that there is always the possibility there is no God and you just cant seem to grasp that one yet...when you feel like actually having a real discussion let me know
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Big Mcdee...Why is it that you new people seem to be so offended? heck i miss the crow and tim as at least they realized that its all good fun and willing to come back...As for miracles and science do you see a problem with relying on science to prove a miracle? By definition a miracle is something that science cannot explain...hence it is a miracle...do you see the problem with wanting science to back miracles? Are somethings in the OT hard to believe? Sure they are...If there is a God, isnt it possible that he helped them? Of course..who knows..we are always on the search to prove/disprove things in the bible.
I forgot to add Tim to my list of worthy foe. Sorry,Tim, that ain't cool. You deserve better.
Link to post
Share on other sites
here are my last (serious) thoughts on this subject. All further posts in this thread will be cruel mocking ones like my last post. Matt tells me that it's up to me, the atheist, to prove that xianity isn't true. Problem is, I'm not an atheist. I don't believe their is a god, but I don't believe their is no god. I really have no idea one way or the other if their is a god or not. I only see things in terms of their probability. And is see that the bible being truth to be highly improbable. Why do I think this? Primarily due to the supernatural nature to many of the stories that take place in the bible. From pretty much all of genesis( I can concede that genesis is allegorical, although I don't know that many xians would make that concession) to moses' various miracles, to jacob wrestling an angel, to the numerous miracles of jesus including walking on water, water into wine, raising the dead, and being resurrected himself. All of these miracles described in the old and new testament fall SO far outside the realm of both my scientific knowledge and my personal experience with reality. I have seen nothing in my life that would lead me to believe that any of those miracles are possible. So if you want me to believe that the impossible is possible, have some proof. I need to see water into wine, or some raised from the dead, or something that defies the laws of science to such a degree that there can be no other explanation other than the supernatural. If you cannot show me something like that, or come up with some other way of proving that these miracles did infact happen, than I'm going to have to handicap the bible being revealed and literal word of god somewhere around winning the lottery type odds. I see no evidence that the Bible is any more or less likely to be true than the Koran or the Torah or the book of mormon or the book of urantia or the vedas or any other mythical religion.
Let's see...the present Pope, before he was that, wrote that the first thirteen chapters of Genesis were "mythological in nature." I think everyone knows Job was a play by now - the histories are probably as accurate as histories ever are when written by only one side....but your problem is miracles. I think the most telling thing you said was: I need to see a miracle, basically. So, all the documentation of healings and rice pots that never empty and all the witnesses and so forth, really will not be convincing. I get that. As for me, I had my own experience with miracles. Someone, or maybe a couple someones around here, keep saying I believe "propaganda" but the fact is I believe myself and my own experience. Scripture, the Gospels mostly, for me were confirmation or validation. So, taking the Bible out of the equation, if you want a miracle you have to seek that and be willing to accept it as that when it happens. That is, you have to trust yourself enough to believe your own perceptions. Not believe "science" or "religion" or whatever, just believe yourself.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Again...i find it humorous to read your posts. Its like you try to make yourself sound smart but yet come off so ignorant. 1. Noahs Ark impossible? interesting and laughable..you know why so we will leave it at that.2. Still avoid having to answer up for anything you say...If you believe the titans are real..then good for you..doesnt mean you have knowledge of this...but ill let you look that up to...3. Again please stick to the topic...If i recall from my last post i said: Where did i say you dont believe in God? please learn to read. The rest of your sentence makes no sense...if you talkin about the philosophical definition of english then you are way out of ur league...you try to act like you know what you want but so far you fail to even come close to a basic understanding4. "Fact that we are not here is not evidence" Again humorous and ignorant on ur part. The very fact that we are here is evidence of something occuring. Was it an intelligent designer or randomness...we dont know but b/c we are here there is the option...My problem is that i felt you were smarter than you actually were. You acted like you wanted to try using some philosophy and i assumed you understood what i was saying. I was wrong to assume that about you and i am sorry.Please feel free to continue not answering questions and using personal attacksEdit: I think the biggest problem for you so far is that I am willin to concede that there is always the possibility there is no God and you just cant seem to grasp that one yet...when you feel like actually having a real discussion let me know
I was pretty sure that this was discussed in detail... and yes, with many better foes then me. It was also pretty obvious that LLY, CrowT, etc. were right about the burden of proof.It really doesn't require a detailed nonsensical philosophical discussion... it's simple logic. If you make a claim, you have to back it up. You want to get into a philosophical discussion with me? Why? Anything can be justified in that matter... which I obviously have no desire to do.Noah's Ark - our modern era wouldn't exist as it is if it did happen... not only to mention that is scientifically impossible... oh yeah, and the fact that it never happened, too.A man who can't spell, can't write, uses shortcuts like "ur" is trying to tell me that I fail to utilize basic understanding skills and proceeds to tell me that I'm way out of my league. You have still yet to present any basic understanding of this discussion so far.The fact that you think the only two choices of us being here are "intelligent design" and "randomness" shows your closed-mindedness and ignorance.I have no reason to try to use "philosophy" to justify my arguments. In fact, I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm refuting incorrect claims originally made by you... you know... about the burden of proof being on those who have a lack of belief in god. Just saying "the burden of proof is on those who have a lack of belief in god" is an extremely idiotic and incorrect statement in the first place.You have presented no valid questions or arguments and I am still waiting for a sign of intelligence.I have also stated multiple times that I am open to such a concept with proof.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If some guy claims some other guy can change water in to wine, walk across water, bring someone back to life, bring himself back to life and indeed himself be part of the being that created the universe, should he have to go out of his way to prove these claims, claims of activities that just don't happen in everyday life, or do I have to go out of my way to show he is wrong? If this same guy claims to know that the universe was created by a being he has a personal relationship with, a being with unlimited power, unlimited knowledge and the ability to be everywhere at once, all in all pretty remarkable claims, am I really supposed to assume he must be right until I can go out of my way to prove him wrong? Oh yeah, this being also inspired some other guys to write a book about what he wants, only he had them throw in different versions of the same story and a bunch of rules that seem ludicrous, but again my default position should be to assume this book is completely true (including the parts that contradict the other parts), unless I can prove it wrong?Is this really what we are arguing here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Mcdee...Why is it that you new people seem to be so offended? heck i miss the crow and tim as at least they realized that its all good fun and willing to come back...
not so much offended as I think it's a huge waist of time. We can't even agree on the same premises, so what's the use?
Link to post
Share on other sites
not so much offended as I think it's a huge waist of time. We can't even agree on the same premises, so what's the use?
It certainly seems like 95% of all religious arguments have this problem; luckily for me I like the sound of my own voice (or the sight of my own typed words) so often this becomes irrelevant...
Link to post
Share on other sites
I like to think that I am, but actually Matt is an old dog, he has been here for a long time. You should do some looking into old threads- this stuff was argued long ago, with much better foe(CrowTrobot,Canada,LongLiveYork,etc.) Notice, they don't even bother anymore, everything has been said about these things that can be possibly said, and as much as can be done we all understand where the other is coming from- we may not agree, but we know where they stand, which is really all you can accomplish in a disagreement such as this.
I guarantee that Crow and York CANNOT 'understand' where you get your ideas from or how they make sense, because frankly, they DONT make sense. You think because they don't confront you direclty anymore means you've won? I think just just knew better than to beat themselves over the head aruging with someone who doesn't use logic or rational thought. I, on the other hand, kept trying....trying until the point at which YOU became fed up because YOU couldn't win and decided to permanently ignore anything I had to say.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I Corinthians 15:12-19

12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I was pretty sure that this was discussed in detail... and yes, with many better foes then me. It was also pretty obvious that LLY, CrowT, etc. were right about the burden of proof.It really doesn't require a detailed nonsensical philosophical discussion... it's simple logic. If you make a claim, you have to back it up. You want to get into a philosophical discussion with me? Why? Anything can be justified in that matter... which I obviously have no desire to do.Noah's Ark - our modern era wouldn't exist as it is if it did happen... not only to mention that is scientifically impossible... oh yeah, and the fact that it never happened, too.A man who can't spell, can't write, uses shortcuts like "ur" is trying to tell me that I fail to utilize basic understanding skills and proceeds to tell me that I'm way out of my league. You have still yet to present any basic understanding of this discussion so far.The fact that you think the only two choices of us being here are "intelligent design" and "randomness" shows your closed-mindedness and ignorance.I have no reason to try to use "philosophy" to justify my arguments. In fact, I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm refuting incorrect claims originally made by you... you know... about the burden of proof being on those who have a lack of belief in god. Just saying "the burden of proof is on those who have a lack of belief in god" is an extremely idiotic and incorrect statement in the first place.You have presented no valid questions or arguments and I am still waiting for a sign of intelligence.I have also stated multiple times that I am open to such a concept with proof.
wow have u actually read anything I posted yet? Where exactly did i say there were only 2 options? I have yet to say anything of that sort and in fact as I will repeat for what, the third time...i am open to all options including the pink unicorn...Please learn to read...it helps the cause
Link to post
Share on other sites
wow have u actually read anything I posted yet? Where exactly did i say there were only 2 options? I have yet to say anything of that sort and in fact as I will repeat for what, the third time...i am open to all options including the pink unicorn...Please learn to read...it helps the cause
writing would help you, too, right?Discussing anything with you is a lost cause, though
Link to post
Share on other sites

it's interesting that TDC apparently caught so much flack over this that they felt compelled to air a post-show "critical look" round table program where the filmmaker dude had to defend himself against scientists, and of course couldn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
it's interesting that TDC apparently caught so much flack over this that they felt compelled to air a post-show "critical look" round table program where the filmmaker dude had to defend himself against scientists, and of course couldn't.
So the secular scientific community thought this was as much bs as Christians did?
Link to post
Share on other sites
it's interesting that TDC apparently caught so much flack over this that they felt compelled to air a post-show "critical look" round table program where the filmmaker dude had to defend himself against scientists, and of course couldn't.
I don't think it was his intent to defend it. I think his tactic (and it's the correct one if you ask me) is to say "Here's what I found now I invite scientists and theologians to take a crack at it and tell me what their conclusions are."It's the biggest gamble. If he's right, he wins and changes biblical history in the process. If he's wrong, he's the object of ridicule for a couple of years.In any event, it will be interesting to see if any scientists take him up on that and do carry the research further.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So the secular scientific community thought this was as much bs as Christians did?
not so much BS as jumping to unscientific conclusions. there are some things that are very interesting about this case, and he might be on to something, but the evidence isn't difinitive in a scientific sense - even though his program is designed to give the impression that it is.at the same time note that his evidence is much more compelling than what you seem to think constitutes empirical (athropological) "evidence" for the resurrection. if you sat in his chair and made the claims you've made here, you would get torn apart for jumping to unscientific conclusions much worse than he was. people like you who claim the divinity of jesus can be supported on empirical grounds shouldn't be throwing stones in this case, since you're doing the same thing he is - to a much worse extent.
Link to post
Share on other sites
not so much BS as jumping to unscientific conclusions. there are some things that are very interesting about this case, and he might be on to something, but the evidence isn't difinitive in a scientific sense - even though his program is designed to give the impression that it is.at the same time note that his evidence is much more compelling than what you seem to think constitutes empirical (athropological) "evidence" for the resurrection. if you sat in his chair and made the claims you've made here, you would get torn apart for jumping to unscientific conclusions much worse than he was. people like you who claim the divinity of jesus can be supported on empirical grounds shouldn't be throwing stones in this case, since you're doing the same thing he is - to a much worse extent.
This was one of the points that came up in the discussion I had with my husband after we watched the program. My point was that even if it's all BS it's no more unbelievable than anything else in the Bible.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have this question that hopefully one of you can make me understand.Cross posted from another thread:I just don't understand (and maybe some of you who believe can explain it to me) why finding out that Jesus wasn't literally resurrected changes the basic tenets of Christianity. What would be so hard about "tweaking" the belief into a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical one? Why does it have to be physical for the faith to work? I mean, I understand that whole part about Paul preaching that the body of Jesus was literally resurrected and that if that isn't true then the faith is in vain (can't remember the exact verse but it was something like that) but in other places in the Bible (Again, I don't remember which gospel. Mark maybe?) Paul preaches that we are of 2 bodies: the human body and the spiritual body and talks about God giving us perfect bodies in heaven. So, why isn't a spiritual resurrection workable to Christianity?Addendum to what I originally said for more clarity and because I've since looked it up:The verse I was thinking about that said the faith would be in vain was 1 Corinthians 15: 13-14: "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."

Link to post
Share on other sites
not so much BS as jumping to unscientific conclusions. there are some things that are very interesting about this case, and he might be on to something, but the evidence isn't difinitive in a scientific sense - even though his program is designed to give the impression that it is.at the same time note that his evidence is much more compelling than what you seem to think constitutes empirical (athropological) "evidence" for the resurrection. if you sat in his chair and made the claims you've made here, you would get torn apart for jumping to unscientific conclusions much worse than he was. people like you who claim the divinity of jesus can be supported on empirical grounds shouldn't be throwing stones in this case, since you're doing the same thing he is - to a much worse extent.
There are already those who have "sat in his chair" and weren't torn apart at all. I wouldn't expect the evidence to be compelling to you as you've ruled out the possibility of there being anything metaphysical at work in this world. All of your arguments essentially start with the premise that metaphyiscal events are not possible and that anything which would constitute evidence for metaphysical things is necessarily invalid because it involves metaphysical claims. You want repeatable, verifiable proof of the Resurrection? How many times would you like Christ to be born and die so that you can be satisfied? The very nature of God's involvement in our time and space would preclude the possibility for repeatability. There exists more in this world than which is repeatable on demand.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have this question that hopefully one of you can make me understand.Cross posted from another thread:I just don't understand (and maybe some of you who believe can explain it to me) why finding out that Jesus wasn't literally resurrected changes the basic tenets of Christianity. What would be so hard about "tweaking" the belief into a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical one? Why does it have to be physical for the faith to work? I mean, I understand that whole part about Paul preaching that the body of Jesus was literally resurrected and that if that isn't true then the faith is in vain (can't remember the exact verse but it was something like that) but in other places in the Bible (Again, I don't remember which gospel. Mark maybe?) Paul preaches that we are of 2 bodies: the human body and the spiritual body and talks about God giving us perfect bodies in heaven. So, why isn't a spiritual resurrection workable to Christianity?Addendum to what I originally said for more clarity and because I've since looked it up:The verse I was thinking about that said the faith would be in vain was 1 Corinthians 15: 13-14: "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."
I don't think it matters all that much. Chirst died on the cross, was buried, and disappeared on Easter Sunday. These are all events witnessed by many people. If you can offer an explanation other than the Resurrection the atheists would love to hear it because no one has come up with a viable one. So, basically, if there was a guy who promised ever-lasting life and then proved that He had the power to grant it what reason do we have to not believe Him? If you believe in anything of Christianity there is no reason to disbelieve in the resurrection of the dead.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There are already those who have "sat in his chair" and weren't torn apart at all.
there absolutely has been no such thing. everyone in history who has ever made the public claim that science supports the divinity of jesus has been ripped to shreds by modern science.
I wouldn't expect the evidence to be compelling to you as you've ruled out the possibility of there being anything metaphysical at work in this world.
i have NOT ruled out that possibility. but at the same time myself (or science in general) is not about to make it the default assumption that metaphysical claims are true until proven otherwise, which is exactly what you are doing. been over this a dozen times before - that's not how science works.
You want repeatable, verifiable proof of the Resurrection? How many times would you like Christ to be born and die so that you can be satisfied? The very nature of God's involvement in our time and space would preclude the possibility for repeatability. There exists more in this world than which is repeatable on demand.
you're the one who has (in past threads) made the claim that there exists compelling *scientific*(anthropological/archeological) evidence that jesus worked miracles and was resurrected, yet you reject the validity of scientific concepts? you are basically admitting you believe what you believe based on faith, NOT on science - you just don't have the balls to admit it to yourself for some reason.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it matters all that much. Chirst died on the cross, was buried, and disappeared on Easter Sunday. These are all events witnessed by many people. If you can offer an explanation other than the Resurrection the atheists would love to hear it because no one has come up with a viable one.
you just shifted the burden of proof, and demonstrated yet again that you can't grasp that 2000-year-old claims do not constitute evidence in any scientific sense.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a christian apologist view on the whole discovery channel episode...I think it makes great points on the episode.

Wailing at the Tomb? Christians Should Face the Facts in The Discovery DocumentaryBy Gregory Koukl The documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” hadn’t even aired yet and many Christians were already in a panic. Just the suggestion that someone found Jesus’ bones in a limestone box had believers by the droves shaking their fists or sticking their heads in the sand in a don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts posture.The Lost Tomb of Jesus Apparently, many Christians don’t even need to see the evidence to pass judgment. When one Evangelical web site polled its visitors with the question, “Do you believe the ‘Tomb of Jesus' documentary, which denies the resurrection of Christ?” 97% said no. This was three days before the documentary even aired. Blind faith is so convenient, isn’t it? You never have to actually confront your critics.Then there’s the bullies. One media watchdog demanded Discovery “cancel this slanderous ‘documentary.’” Another prominent Evangelical organization composed this letter for their constituents to hammer Discovery with:"I resent the Discovery Channel's attempt to demean and belittle Christianity by saying it is based on a lie. It is hard for me to believe that The Discovery Channel would dare do such a 'documentary' on any other religion. "It may turn out that you have done Christianity a favor by awakening millions of Christians to your anti-Christian bias and bigotry. Perhaps they will no longer stay silent."This kind of bullying is profoundly embarrassing to me, a follower of Christ, and should be discomfiting to every thoughtful Christian. It is not only a dismal retreat from a legitimate challenge that must be answered; it’s obscurantist.Look, if the Bible says it and you believe it, that might settle it for you, but it doesn’t settle it for millions who might be interested in your ideas and are waiting to hear a thoughtful response to what appears on the surface to be a fair challenge.There are good reasons to doubt the conclusions of this documentary, but no one will ever know them if Christians pull up the drawbridge and bellow from the parapet. Having seen the documentary, here are some problems that quickly come to mind: * Scholars have known about these tombs for over 25 years. There’s a reason they haven’t taken these names seriously. Only three have any direct biblical significance: Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. And that cluster of names is statistically unremarkable. In fact, it would be odd if a family with those three names was not found in a tomb together, given their common use (there are at least four ossuaries discovered inscribed “Jesus, son of Joseph,” and one in four women were named Mary, so it’s even money that one of these tombs would have that combination). And connection of Jesus to any of the other names? Wild speculation. So what you have here is a creative guessing game. * The entire argument is based on the statistical significance of the names in a cluster. If Jesus was married, and if Jesus was married to a woman named Mariamne, and if Mariamne was also a nickname for Mary Magdalene, and if Jesus had a brother named Matthew, and if Jesus had a son named Judas, and if the now-famous James ossuary belonged to James the brother of Jesus, then you’d have all the members of Jesus’ family together in one tomb. But that’s a lot of “ifs. * Even though this is called the “Jesus Family Tomb,” there is no hard evidence that any of these so-called “family members” is even related. The only DNA testing that’s been done—between Jesus and Mariamne—came up negative. Let me repeat that: The DNA test came up negative. That is fact. The rest is speculation. * The documentary claims, “Jesus and Mary were married, as the DNA evidence suggests.” This is nonsense. Think about it. How can DNA evidence suggest someone is married? DNA can’t “suggest” anything about legal relationships, only biological ones. In this case, the DNA evidence showed Jesus and Mary were not related by a mother, not that they were husband and wife. The truth is, she could have been married to any one of the males in the tomb, or to none of them for that matter. The DNA “suggests” nothing. * The researchers claim they’re just trying to connect the dots? Fair enough. But why connect the dots the way they did? I’ll tell you why. Because it tells their story. There are many other legitimate ways to connect those same dots—some much more probable than the way the documentary connects them, but won’t give the story they’re promoting. But, of course, that wouldn’t create breaking news, would it? * Jesus’ family was a poor family from Nazareth, not a middle- to upper-class family from Jerusalem. So this tomb is the wrong kind of tomb located in the wrong city. * The documentary claims Jesus spoke in codes. This is false. Jesus spoke in parables, like many of the teachers of His day, not in codes that needed to be deciphered. They say Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ most trusted apostle. But you have to wait 400 years before this evidence pops up in any alleged historical record. They said that Jesus’ family members were executed because He was a pretender to throne of Israel. This is pure fiction. Notice what this accomplishes, though. All of these little exaggerations and inaccuracies make an unlikely tale sound more plausible when, on its own unembellished merits, it is not. * What we have here are two different characterizations of what happened to the body of Jesus of Nazareth 2,000 years ago. One is based on artifacts—the ossuaries—and one is based on documents—the historical records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul. Now granted, these kinds of things are not entirely exact science, but all things being equal, which do you think gives us more precise information, bone boxes or written records? The written records, obviously. * The claim of Jesus’ resurrection, was part of the earliest, most primitive testimony regarding Jesus. And it was made by those very same people that the documentary suggests knew Jesus’ bones were actually secretly buried in Jerusalem. Why would so many of them die for this lie when they knew it was a lie? It doesn’t add up. But that’s what you must believe if you take seriously the conclusions of this documentary.If Christianity stands or falls on the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection, as the Apostle Paul said, then Christ’s followers have no liberty to retreat behind blind faith or hide behind an angry scowl.No, if you’re a Christian you shouldn’t run, whine, scream, or have a religious tantrum. Instead, you should be thanking the Discovery Channel for giving you the chance to step up to the plate and knock this soft ball out of the park.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...