Jump to content

James Cameron Finds Jesus


Recommended Posts

Hang on there! You're being a little creative with what people have said to try to incite argument. I didn't say anything about the film's claims and their affect on Christianity. I said that if the Resurrection is a sham so is the rest of the faith. The film that this thread is about has no bearing what-so-ever on that.I will state again that the resurrection of Jesus' worldly bodily is completely irrelevant to the both the divinity of Christ and Christianity as a whole.I can see how the timing of my comments may have led you astray but I'm certainly not claiming anything of the importance of a "phyiscal" resurrection and never intended to.
O.K., then you are just stating, out loud, that it would be perfectly fine if the bible was just straight up lying. Why is that alright?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hang on there! You're being a little creative with what people have said to try to incite argument. I didn't say anything about the film's claims and their affect on Christianity. I said that if the Resurrection is a sham so is the rest of the faith. The film that this thread is about has no bearing what-so-ever on that.I will state again that the resurrection of Jesus' worldly bodily is completely irrelevant to the both the divinity of Christ and Christianity as a whole.I can see how the timing of my comments may have led you astray but I'm certainly not claiming anything of the importance of a "phyiscal" resurrection and never intended to.
I promise I'm not being creative with what anyone said nor am I trying to incite an argument. I was paraphrasing from memory. I then went back to find the exact statements and I still don't see how my paraphrasing said anything other than what you said.The basic claim of the film is that the resurrection wasn't a physical one. I think that's exactly what this conversation is about and cannot see how that has no bearing.Anyway, now that everyone's back on the same page, we have 2 votes (semaj and 11) that the divinity doesn't hinge on a physical resurrection and 1 vote (Lois) that it does. For the 2 of you who don't think the physical resurrection proves divinity, what does? Is it provable or is it just faith? If it's just faith, why do you personally believe that Christ was divine?
Link to post
Share on other sites
O.K., then you are just stating, out loud, that it would be perfectly fine if the bible was just straight up lying. Why is that alright?
How would the lack of a physical resurrection make the Bible a lie?
Link to post
Share on other sites
How would the lack of a physical resurrection make the Bible a lie?
I don't know, the parts that speak of the body no longer being there and Jesus physically walking with them after his death, Thomas putting his fingers thru the holes in his hands because he didn't buy it- those scriptures would just be lies. The prophesy that death would not hold him, that he would rise form the dea, would just be lies. Seems pretty simple, really.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the point that's in contention. That's what you believe. I'm not sure your fellow Christians in this thread agree with you. That's what I'm trying to bring to light here. Ultimately, I'd like for the majority of Christians to agree one way or the other so that when I make general statements about Christianity and the belief of where divinity comes from that the general statement would be at least generally true.
Ah, Renae - and I want all my pocket cards to turn into royal flushes - alas, I believe we are both to be disappointed. That said, the very vociferous fundamentalist Christian right, as in evidence on message boards everywhere and on cable 24/7, doesn't really reflect (as I have said again and again) the beliefs of the majority of Christian churches worldwide. What is also true, is that theology is a much less simple science than the Biblical literalists would have you believe. But, it is also something that can work for everyone at any level of understanding they are able to attain. Lois is a pragmatic fellow - things in his world are black and white, brick and mortar, true or false. For him the statement "all truth is a paradox" would seem ludicrous on it's face. But you are a different sort, I believe, and will forgive me if I try to explain this, to you perhaops, or to anyone reading this very interesting discussion. Semaj I hope will add where I fail to be clear. And I warn you, while you want to know what most Christians believe, what I am going to tell you is accepted theology but also never going to fit into a neat slot. 'First - what does "divine" mean? It just means: "of God," or "from God" or, as in the case of "divine service" to serve God.Your question:
For the 2 of you who don't think the physical resurrection proves divinity, what does? Is it provable or is it just faith? If it's just faith, why do you personally believe that Christ was divine?
The Second Person of the Trinity (God) exists - this is a word in English with a tense, present. In Greek they have a voice that has no tense, a much better way to express I AM. Is, was, will be. God=Divinity. The Resurrection is not the key, the Incarnation is the real issue - God comes to earth and beco,mes a human being. But God cannot be other than God, and so, Jesus was human and divine from birth. He is Divine eternally. The Greek word for eternal means ALWAYS - as in always past, present, future. To be resurrected is to literally walk upright again. Be raised up. Lifted. All these things happened to Jesus after the Crucifixion. As they will for us all. Jesus Himself, and I invite you to serch the Scripture, never said anything about a physical resurrection. As a matter of fact, when Mary (sister of Lazarus) suggested it, He corrected her and said, "I AM resurrection and life." and proceeded to call Lazarus out of his tomb. I AM, is the name of God in Hebrew. They were Jews. All of this should make fairly clear that divinity and bodily resurrection are not related ideas. What "proves" divinity? You do. You are divine, Jesus said so. He said, "I will be in you as the Father is in me." The answer is where it has always been, inside of you. It is there for everyone. Every Christian's search for God always leads them into themselves. In you is a spark of the Holy Spirit. In you is the power to call a for healing and miracles. In you is the abilioty to walk on water and tell the tree to uproot itself and so it will. Jesus said so. You follow Jesus to find yourself. Then you know. You know the way you know there is a monitor in front of your face and fingers on the ends of your hands. Not because anyone told you. because it is your reality. No one anywhere can prove this to anyone. Ever.
Link to post
Share on other sites
They are contradictory,but it goes beyond that. There are stories of Christ after he arose- I believe it was Thomas that wanted to see the holes in his hands. If he didn't physically rise from the dead, then those stories are just bald faced made up lies, and I would have no part in it. You absolutely have to accept the physical ressurection of Jesus in order to accept the Bible- with this asteriks. The thing is, most people these days just pick and choose, so I suppose if you just wanted to just throw those stories out you would be just fine. Since many scriptures are ignored now, why not ignore a few more?
Imagine something for a minute. You have a dream, and in the dream you hear a fly buzzing - but when you awake, there is no fly - it was only a sound your brain made you hear. In another dream, you are holding a hockey stick, you feel it in your hand. You awake, and there is no hockey stick. Nothing in your hands. Jesus is God, and can make Himself appear, make a new body, but very likely, simply make the experience of Himself as real as the person needs it to be. They are not made up lies, Thomas surely did see and hear and speak with Christ, perceiving Him more clearly than you and I do one another. He put his fingers into the wounds, he did all these things because God/Christ, Creator as well as Son and Spirit, made that happen then. Secondly, there is stuff in the Bible that is not factual, but still conveys truth. And then there is Revelations which was just a popular novel the Emporer liked. All made up. I think it has some truth in it, too. As to people picking and choosing, everyone does, Lois, even you. That's because you can only read for what you can understand, you have not memorized the Bible and there are parts you just don't get, and haven't incorporated. Then there are contradictions to explain away, so we all choose and create our truths. But still, there are truths for all who seek them. Ask and you will receive is as true as it gets. What you need and what I need and what someone else needs is not all the same. So, we all get what we need. Even when it seems so different.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 11 to 1 has mostly hit the nail on the head these last few posts. I still contend that if the Resurrection and Ascension didn't occur we have no reason to believe anything else about Jesus or Christianity. He certainly is correct about the Incarnation though. That was the point at which a human being became both fully God and fully man. The Resurrection was the point at which He proved that He was both fully man and fully God. Without the proof the Incarnation is just a big lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think 11 to 1 has mostly hit the nail on the head these last few posts. I still contend that if the Resurrection and Ascension didn't occur we have no reason to believe anything else about Jesus or Christianity. He certainly is correct about the Incarnation though. That was the point at which a human being became both fully God and fully man. The Resurrection was the point at which He proved that He was both fully man and fully God. Without the proof the Incarnation is just a big lie.
I agree. I think the point I was stressing was that divinity was already present and not a function of bodily resurrection. But yes, if life is not eternal, (without resurrection) the rest is less than commentary.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine something for a minute. You have a dream, and in the dream you hear a fly buzzing - but when you awake, there is no fly - it was only a sound your brain made you hear. In another dream, you are holding a hockey stick, you feel it in your hand. You awake, and there is no hockey stick. Nothing in your hands. Jesus is God, and can make Himself appear, make a new body, but very likely, simply make the experience of Himself as real as the person needs it to be. They are not made up lies, Thomas surely did see and hear and speak with Christ, perceiving Him more clearly than you and I do one another. He put his fingers into the wounds, he did all these things because God/Christ, Creator as well as Son and Spirit, made that happen then. Secondly, there is stuff in the Bible that is not factual, but still conveys truth. And then there is Revelations which was just a popular novel the Emporer liked. All made up. I think it has some truth in it, too. As to people picking and choosing, everyone does, Lois, even you. That's because you can only read for what you can understand, you have not memorized the Bible and there are parts you just don't get, and haven't incorporated. Then there are contradictions to explain away, so we all choose and create our truths. But still, there are truths for all who seek them. Ask and you will receive is as true as it gets. What you need and what I need and what someone else needs is not all the same. So, we all get what we need. Even when it seems so different.
Thanks for the explanation. It was quite eloquent. That's the stance I would expect Christianity to take because, after all, it's all faith and if you can have enough faith to believe someone literally rose from the dead it made no sense to me why finding out he didn't actually-in the laws of physics ways-do that would destroy a faith.However, the bolded part of your explanation above sounds a lot like a "one with a universal creator" stance. That sounds a lot like Eastern Philosophy wherein we're all part of the energy (God) that encompasses every fiber of every single thing in existence. In my experience, that's not a slant that Christians are comfortable with. In my experience, when you point out some of the things Jesus supposedly said (especially with things like what's written in the Gospel of Thomas - ie "I am not your teacher. Because you have drank and become drunk from the very same spring from which I draw.") a lot of Christians get very uncomfortable with that. For some Christians, there seems to be a need for heirarchy and a specific set of explicit instructions for getting to heaven rather than just a journey to find your truth. Here in the Bible belt there seems to be a need to separate yourself from God, to make sure that you understand that you are a servant and not actually a part of the being that is God. I'm rambling here and to what end I'm not sure so just let me conclude by saying that if Christianity does get more metaphysical with what it means to be God or of God, that blurs the line between Christianity and something like Buddhism. I think it makes the differences between the 2 less in some ways. My grandparents (devout Southern Baptists) would have a fit over that. I'm pretty sure Lois might too.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the bottom line....The Bible says the earth is a flat disk, covered with a sky dome, and that there is water above the sky dome that falls to earth as rain when the windows of heaven are opened. There are literally thousands of references in the Bible that fit this world view, foundations, fountains, corners, firmament being poured out and made firm, windows of heaven, tall mountain from which the entire world was viasble, tall tree visable from the eniter world.... it goes on and on and on and on. The Bible is 100% consistant with the world view.... INCLUDING the physical resurection of Jesus!!!!!!When heaven was viewed as a physical place above the sky dome, going to heaven was a purely physical thing. Well, some 500 years ago the last nails where firmly placed into the lid of the "flat earth's" coffin.During the Reniassance, the Biblical passages that describe the world as a flat disk covered with a sky dome were "reinterprited". It is figurative,not literal water above the sky. Fermament meand "vast distance" instead of "arched support". Foundations, corners, etc are all misinterpritations.... on and on......What didn't get "revised" during that time was the physical resurection of Christ. Heaven changed from physical place to metaphysical, yet the resurection remained a physical one. So, IF these bones were somehow shown to be the bones of Jesus with some magical supr high degree of likelyhood (like spherical earth, helo-centric universe was proven), then it would just cause the change of physical resurection to metaphysical, as RenaeDawn has been poiniting out!They'd have to "de-emphasize" all the "The tomb was empty" stuff and reinterprit it into being the family hiding the bones from the Romans or something like that.It would take a LOT more than just finding the bones of Jesus to end Christianity. It has survived just as big, or bigger hits to its dogma in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the explanation. It was quite eloquent. That's the stance I would expect Christianity to take because, after all, it's all faith and if you can have enough faith to believe someone literally rose from the dead it made no sense to me why finding out he didn't actually-in the laws of physics ways-do that would destroy a faith.However, the bolded part of your explanation above sounds a lot like a "one with a universal creator" stance. That sounds a lot like Eastern Philosophy wherein we're all part of the energy (God) that encompasses every fiber of every single thing in existence. In my experience, that's not a slant that Christians are comfortable with. In my experience, when you point out some of the things Jesus supposedly said (especially with things like what's written in the Gospel of Thomas - ie "I am not your teacher. Because you have drank and become drunk from the very same spring from which I draw.") a lot of Christians get very uncomfortable with that. For some Christians, there seems to be a need for heirarchy and a specific set of explicit instructions for getting to heaven rather than just a journey to find your truth. Here in the Bible belt there seems to be a need to separate yourself from God, to make sure that you understand that you are a servant and not actually a part of the being that is God. I'm rambling here and to what end I'm not sure so just let me conclude by saying that if Christianity does get more metaphysical with what it means to be God or of God, that blurs the line between Christianity and something like Buddhism. I think it makes the differences between the 2 less in some ways. My grandparents (devout Southern Baptists) would have a fit over that. I'm pretty sure Lois might too.
I hear what you are saying, and agree with a large part of it. What is also true is that Christianity was always an eastern mystical religion, until after Constantine. There is little difference (none, really) between "Christ consciousness" and "Buddha consciousness." If you were to read a classic of Christian Mysticism like "The Cloud of Unknowing" you would find it a sort of instruction manual for being "oned with God." You don't really get a lot of in-depth Christian theological thought on your aveage internet forum. The real truth, as I see it, is that Jesus made sure here that there were roads to God for everyone. Lois gets to go through a black and white world and if he manages to avoid most of the traps, like falling into judgement, he gets there. I get to take a road more mystical and if I avoid the traps, like not understanding that evil really IS, then I get there, also. God so loves you and I and Lois, that all of us can be drawn in by something making sense to us, if we only look.There is nothing more mystical than the Gospel of Saint John.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I hear what you are saying, and agree with a large part of it. What is also true is that Christianity was always an eastern mystical religion, until after Constantine. There is little difference (none, really) between "Christ consciousness" and "Buddha consciousness." If you were to read a classic of Christian Mysticism like "The Cloud of Unknowing" you would find it a sort of instruction manual for being "oned with God." You don't really get a lot of in-depth Christian theological thought on your aveage internet forum. The real truth, as I see it, is that Jesus made sure here that there were roads to God for everyone. Lois gets to go through a black and white world and if he manages to avoid most of the traps, like falling into judgement, he gets there. I get to take a road more mystical and if I avoid the traps, like not understanding that evil really IS, then I get there, also. God so loves you and I and Lois, that all of us can be drawn in by something making sense to us, if we only look.There is nothing more mystical than the Gospel of Saint John.
drugs and religion don't mix well
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the explanation. It was quite eloquent. That's the stance I would expect Christianity to take because, after all, it's all faith and if you can have enough faith to believe someone literally rose from the dead it made no sense to me why finding out he didn't actually-in the laws of physics ways-do that would destroy a faith.However, the bolded part of your explanation above sounds a lot like a "one with a universal creator" stance. That sounds a lot like Eastern Philosophy wherein we're all part of the energy (God) that encompasses every fiber of every single thing in existence. In my experience, that's not a slant that Christians are comfortable with. In my experience, when you point out some of the things Jesus supposedly said (especially with things like what's written in the Gospel of Thomas - ie "I am not your teacher. Because you have drank and become drunk from the very same spring from which I draw.") a lot of Christians get very uncomfortable with that. For some Christians, there seems to be a need for heirarchy and a specific set of explicit instructions for getting to heaven rather than just a journey to find your truth. Here in the Bible belt there seems to be a need to separate yourself from God, to make sure that you understand that you are a servant and not actually a part of the being that is God. I'm rambling here and to what end I'm not sure so just let me conclude by saying that if Christianity does get more metaphysical with what it means to be God or of God, that blurs the line between Christianity and something like Buddhism. I think it makes the differences between the 2 less in some ways. My grandparents (devout Southern Baptists) would have a fit over that. I'm pretty sure Lois might too.
I wouldn't have a fit- it just fits with what I say everyday, which goes along with pretty much what you said, which is no matter what anybody throws at christianity most "christians" would just adapt and just roll with it, whereas I most definitely would not. If certain things are not true then it is a lie, plain and simple. I liked 11 to 1's explanation with the dream sequence but I am of the mind that maybe, just maybe God would have found a way to mention the part that it was only a dream. Not literal at all- my Son wont REALLY rise from the dead, that is just ridiculous. It amazes me how so called christians limit God. I wonder if it angers him or saddens him?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I liked 11 to 1's explanation with the dream sequence but I am of the mind that maybe, just maybe God would have found a way to mention the part that it was only a dream. Not literal at all- my Son wont REALLY rise from the dead, that is just ridiculous. It amazes me how so called christians limit God. I wonder if it angers him or saddens him?
You misunderstood me. I didn't say it was a dream, I was pointing out that it isn't necessary for a real, literal thing to exist for you to experience it as if it does. I put no limits at all on God, I said He could make you see it and experience it, make Thomas experience whatever he needed to, not a dream at all. Lois, this so-called reality you perceive all around you? It doesn't exist. I promise, look into it. By the time you get down to the quantum level, everything is actually made up of nothing at all. No one had to lie about anything for them to have experience Christ's Presence in a very three-dimensional way and also for His earthly physical remains to still be in a cave someplace. It seems to me you are the one limiting God.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You misunderstood me. I didn't say it was a dream, I was pointing out that it isn't necessary for a real, literal thing to exist for you to experience it as if it does. I put no limits at all on God, I said He could make you see it and experience it, make Thomas experience whatever he needed to, not a dream at all. Lois, this so-called reality you perceive all around you? It doesn't exist. I promise, look into it. By the time you get down to the quantum level, everything is actually made up of nothing at all. No one had to lie about anything for them to have experience Christ's Presence in a very three-dimensional way and also for His earthly physical remains to still be in a cave someplace. It seems to me you are the one limiting God.
Sure. It's a reality thing. Jesus wasn't speaking to the people- he was speaking at the quantam level, dude. It seems to you that I limit God because you are misled as you can possibly be, and have no grasp on much of anything when it comes to chistianity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This made me chuckle for about three different reasons. Do you see why? Good Luck.
Oh oh oh, Mr. Kooooooootter, Mr. Kooooooootter. Let me guess. I bet one of them is because he's putting human emotions on (ie, limiting) God.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh oh oh, Mr. Kooooooootter, Mr. Kooooooootter. Let me guess. I bet one of them is because he's putting human emotions on (ie, limiting) God.
Good, very good.. also lois wondered if they angered "him".
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus H Christ was a helluva man... and no more the son of god than I am. I hope the DNA tests come back soon so we can find out which Middle-Easterners are related to him and crucify them too... Hey, maybe Saddam was kin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus H Christ was a wonderful man... and no more the son of god than I am. I hope the DNA tests come back soon so we can find out which Middle-Easterners are related to him and crucify them too... Hey, maybe Saddam was kin.
You do alot of drugs, don't you?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus H Christ was a helluva man... and no more the son of god than I am. I hope the DNA tests come back soon so we can find out which Middle-Easterners are related to him and crucify them too... Hey, maybe Saddam was kin.
So will you be collecting the DNA from God to see if He is the father of Jesus?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh oh oh, Mr. Kooooooootter, Mr. Kooooooootter. Let me guess. I bet one of them is because he's putting human emotions on (ie, limiting) God.
Anger is an emotion. So is happiness. The bible expresses many times emotions that God "felt". To take that away would be to limit him, not the opposite.
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...