Jesus Family Tomb - Forum - Christians always knock science

Home » Forum » General Discussions » Christians always knock science

Hello, guest

Name: betty47 • Title: Christians always knock science • Date posted: 03/05/07 10:55

Q: Let's not forget that Christians have always been knocking true science for thousands of years if it conflicts with their religion so why would we expect anything different today with this movie? Of course Christians would say Simcha's story is not true. The truly amazing thing is how early Christians got anyone to believe their story in the first place. If someone came along today in 2007 and said they walked on water , healed the sick , raised the dead and were born of a virgin mother, we'd all have a good laugh and put them in a mental hospital. But people truly believed all this happened 2000 years ago and were willing to die for it and commit horrible violence in the name of Christianity throughout the centuries. They persecuted Galileo because they thought the world was flat. Today we still have people in Kansas that want to teach the Bible instead of evolution! So of course they'll go to any extreme to say this movie is a fake. Thank goodness there is no Spanish Inquisition in 2007, because they probably are secretly hoping to burn someone at the stake over this. But just as we found out the world is not flat and the world was not created in 8 days, we'll probably find out also that what this movies says is true. Will people believe it? Of course not, but we already knew that.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 11:00

A: As opposed to say, an objective person, which your rant indicates you aren't?
Actually, as a Christian, I am biased against the film, as a scholar, though, I see a lot of problems, the biggest being the identification of Mary Magdalene with the Mariamne in the tomb. As for the evolution debate, have you ever examined the case of a scientific creationists (on something more than a third grade explanation of the theory), or is this simply an expression of your own closed mind?

Name: betty47 • Date: 03/05/07 11:34

A: I am a proud Italian Catholic American. My family is Catholic. I go to Church every Sunday. I went to Catholic school and even taught Sunday School for a while. So don't tell me who is Christian and objective and who isn't. But I also know the Catholic Church is far from perfect and that people can be incredibly foolish at times. What is the harm in finding out more about Jesus? What are people afraid of? That is something that all Christians should want. Would it change the power of his words? Absolutely not. But Christians are very arrogant about the "truth", and I've always disliked that arrogance. Who are we to say that other people will burn in hell if they don't believe in Jesus? Christians get all wrapped up in knots about abortion, women priests, contraception and homosexuality, and maybe if we find out who the true Jesus was, we'll find out what he really stood for. Don't Christians say the truth will set you free? So let's find out the truth.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 12:18

A: There is no harm with an actually search for truth, but I don't get the impression that this is what you are truly seeking. Again there are a lot of problems that any scholar of any real ability would note with this film, but people are accepting it without answering those questions? Check your objectivity, and read something like the case for Christ to get the other side of the argument about the reliability of the gospels if you are really seeking to be objective.

Name: Patricia • Date: 03/05/07 15:48

A: Christians do not "always" knock science...
I recall the enthusiastic embrace they gave the scientific community as they collectively held their breath awaiting confirmation that The Shroud was REAL... Finally, they would have "proof" to shove into the faces of the "non-believers" that Christ was who they said He was...
But when that same science points in a direction they do not like...
They scream foul... hoax... lies!
Well, Christ existed. Too much documentation to say otherwise.
I know he lived an exceptional life... he died... knew it was part of his purpose... and I love Him dearly for this.
That His body died and rose 3 days later or that they were burried in a family tomb... "ashes to ashes...dust to dust..."
What difference does it make?
If anything, to think Christ might have been much more "like me"... than I thought... that He (although having some pretty nifty abilities) was... "human too"... Well, this gives me fewer excuse when I act like a self-centered, uncaring, lazy, good-for-nuthin' moron.
Yeah... watching that show on the Discover Channel made me a bit nervous...
But the facts are too compelling to ignore... and rather exciting if you put your "freak" down and really think about it.
I mean really... think about it.
Having the coffin of Christ right in front of you.
I'd blubber like a baby.
I believe Christ was the Son of God.
He said we are ALL God's children.
He said, of those "nifty talents" He had... the we could do those too... We could walk on water just like Him.
The Bible tells us that faith, no bigger than a mustard seed can move mountains... but if your faith is so flimsy it can be knocked over with The Truth, what good is it?
Remember my fellow spiritual refugees...
"The Truth shall set you free."

Name: betty47 • Date: 03/05/07 16:30

A: Yes. It sent chills down my spine to see the actual coffin that Christ "might" have been laid in after his death. But my point is that Christ's words may have been greatly twisted after his death. For example, Saint Paul never even met Jesus, but he converted the masses based on his personal vision of Christ. That vision by Paul has greatly guided Christianity for 2,000 years. For example, woman have been kept out of the preisthood largely based on what Saint Paul said Jesus wanted. But perhaps Christ was different than Saint Paul said he was. We need to find out more about the true Jesus and that could be remarkable.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 16:42

A: Betty, you need to remember that Paul tells us that Peter, James the brother of Christ, and John did not argue that he was wrong doctrinally (Galatians 2) so you either have to accept that his teaching about the resurrection was in accord with their teaching or assume he was a complete fraud. Considering the low quality of the evidence supplied here, I can't say we have anything proving the contrary.

Name: Patricia • Date: 03/05/07 16:58

A: Amen, betty!

But Christ's words have been twisted by so many it is difficult to know what is "real".
The fact that todays Bible is a man-edited version is in of itself a "twist" of words... translations from one language to another... Who knows what remains accurate anymore?
Also, the Bible today consists only of Books and Verses, which we (the ignorant a pliable lay-person) have been "allowed" to see by those in Religious Power.
The King James Version is just that... the "version", which King James allowed... and when the printing press made Bibles affordable to those outside of the church and aristocrasy... MORE adits, more changes...
The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal there are entire books ignored... sections of those we are familiar with have been edited out.
Then... there is the heading of every Book of the Bible... largely ignored...
Every Book begins with these words... "The Gospel According to..."
According to...
Through the interpretation of... a human...
A fallible... opinionated human...

Things that make you go... hmmmm

Name: robin • Date: 03/05/07 18:42

A: Betty you are absolutely right! The Christians have always went against their own BIBLE. Judge not lest ye be judged...they always are judging people and saying who is and is not going to hell.

Name: pat440 • Date: 03/05/07 18:48

A: KRS, Thank you for your sound arguments that you have posted in these forums, especially on the veracity and the reliability on the New Testament. I wish all believers had a knowledge of the transmission of the Scriptures that would help them in a debate such as this one.

To all, you know it seems to me that everyone can stand up for what they believe in, EXCEPT Christians. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades were honorable. To the contrary. As believers, we are told to pursue peace, and edify (build up) others. However, to betty47, I pray and hope one day you'll come to realize that Chrisitianity cannot change a soul, but Jesus Christ can. Do you really believe that you came from a monkey? Then why are dogs still having puppies and cats still having kittens. It seems to me it takes more faith to believe in the so-called "proof" of evolution than it does to believe in intelligent design. How does a painting come to existence? By a painter. How does a building come into existence? By a builder. The fact is, listen to your conscience. Your conscience tells you there is a Creator. And you know what? He loved you so much that He wanted to reveal Himself to you through Scripture and through the Lord Jesus Christ and take of our sin debt. I'm glad you just "KNOW" this documentary on the lost tomb of Jesus will be found true. For 2,000 years, people have tried to do away with Jesus Christ. And yet He has the greatest following ever known to man. And by the way, I don't want to burn anyone at the stake. In fact, I don't want anyone to BURN!

Patricia, you really want to believe that don't you, all that about the Bible being written by man. Well consdier this: Would you ever write about another person to glorify him or her and not yourself? Muhammad wrote about himself and Allah and brought glory to himself. Would you be willing to die for something if you knew it was a lie? Yet the apostles and their associates bring glory to one person: Jesus Christ. They talk about His righteousness, not their own. They talk about His glory and not their own. And you might want to consider this verse: 2 Tim 3:16-"ALL Scripture is BREATHED out by God and PROFITABLE for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." One man wrote the Koran, but many men inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible, and they all agree in this, Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to this earth, lived a sinless life, died on a cross, rose again from the dead, and is coming again. Every one of them had the same message. Don't you find that interesting? And they all died for HIM!

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 19:01

A: Pat; according is simply a Greek way of naming an author, its not about interpretation. Additionally, we have copies of the NT going back into the late second century, with more manuscripts than any other book in the ancient world. Additionally, that means we have a copy that is closer in time to the original authorship of the book than any other work in the ancient world. We actually can be more certain about the wording of the NT than we can Homer's Illiad which has about one tenth the number of copies, and has a five hundred year gap (at least) between the oldest copy and the authorship.

As for Christians judging, I'm not the one condemning you or judging you, I'm trying to present facts and what the Bible says - judgment is not about determining what is right or wrong, its about condemning a person and assigning punishment, that is outside of my, or any believer's sphere, since Christ will judge the quick and the dead.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 19:04

A: Pat440,

thanks for the kind words; my goal isn't to prove the Bible since only the Holy Spirit of God can convert a man or woman to the Son. I've had three goals, the first is to notify believers that this case is not as strong as the filmmakers seem to believe it is. The second is to ask non-Christians to evaluate the evidence of the New Testament with an Open mind rather than from their own naturalistic bias, and provide them some evidence to do so. Finally, and most importantly, because God has given me the opportunity to study His word deeply over the years, and it is only fitting that I provide evidence and problems with the documentary.

Name: guahould • Date: 03/05/07 19:15

A: Trust our concience. Hmmm now there is scientific reason!! Man this comedy just never ends!!!! Of course the intelligent people wonder how we got here still but certainly not going to accept some rediculous story like that of noahs ark or any other crazy theory!!!! Got it?? yet?? Awake yet??

Name: guahould • Date: 03/05/07 19:17

A: It actually amazes me how anyone that is a strong believer actually has the nerve to speak of intelligence or facts.

Name: guahould • Date: 03/05/07 19:19

A: Whatever happened to the "facts" that the earth is flat,, or that the sun revolves around the earth?? These facts came from the same place did they not?? Now stop referring to the nonsense as facts.!!!

Name: pat440 • Date: 03/05/07 19:47

A: guahold, because I'm a believer, I'm to throw out intelligence and facts! No, That's why the Bible says, "Come now, and let us reason together,' says the LORD." That's why when the apostle Paul spoke "the words of truth and reason," King Agrippa said, "You almost persuade me to become a Christian." That's why Paul "reasoned" with Felix (the governor) about "righteousness, self-control, and judgment to come." And that's why Felix "was afraid."

At one time the concept of a thousand-ton aircraft flying through the air seemed irrational and absurd. But after man studied the laws of physics, it was discovered to be quite rational and believable. If one studies God's Word and understands His Law, Christianity is seen to infinitely ratoinal and believable. Atheism, on the other hand, rejects logic and evidence and is the epitome of irrationalism. It should be abandoned by any rational person as being foolishness.

Name: robin • Date: 03/05/07 20:07

A: Fact remains no one will ever know what the first Bible said and all the books that were tossed to the side. What is teh oldest religion in the world I'd say Hinduism. Are they all wrong too? Were the Native American tribes all wrong? I suppose all the Christians taught those heathens a thing or two. Paganism also is older than Christianity. Why is it that the Christians think their Bible and their way is the only way?

Name: robin • Date: 03/05/07 20:09

A: Also if god is suppose to be so loving and caring and father like why would anyone have to scared into any religion? Why would he take a soul and say ok you have one chance it's my way or hell. Cause I'm so loving? NO.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 20:32

A: guahould,

I often find it strange that Christians are viewed as unintellectual and separated from science. I've been a Christian since I was 18 and in college for my Ph.D in Biochemistry & Molecular BioPhysics and Mathematics. The classic response from evolutionists is to bring up outrageous claims made by creationists of the past. I find it funny that only Christians are attacked for coming up with cracked ideas. I'm guessing you are an evolutionist and your breaking down Christians for not being educated so I'm guessing you've thoroughly educated in evolution so I'm sure your familiar with Piltdown man, Java man, Nebraska man, and if you would like more lies / hoax's in evolution I'd be glad to list some for you. In religion there is always those couple of people that are determined to lie or misinterpret truth for their 30 seconds of fame. Goes for the religion of Christianity and the religion of Evolution. So we should not let those very very few people sway our beliefs. Lets stick to the facts. Evolution attacks creation because they know their methods are flawed. I actually had one of my professors tell our class that radioisotope and radio carbon dating were completely unreliable and then said "but don't tell the creationists". If you'd like to I can explain in detail why their not. Let me know. Both religions are based on faith. Thats why there are people that believe evolution and people that believe creation. Because both are based on faith. Neither are proven, for if one was. There would only be one. Just make sure you research into your faith. Holding a Ph.D in the biological field I'm telling you there are ALOT of holes in the theory of evolution. You should really look into it and if you'd like I could write some out for you or you could do a little experiment. Go to Mt. St. Helens and grab two rocks that were created in the 1980's when it erupted and send it to be radio-isotope dated, but tell them you grabbed one from the bottom of the grand canyon and send one to them later and tell them you grabbed it from the top of the grand canyon. You will be amazed with your findings when you open an encyclopedia and look at the dates of the rocks from the bottom and from the top of the grand canyon. Magically they are the same as the encyclopedia. Billions of years old, but wait... they were created in the 1980's.

Name: HeatherC0320 • Date: 03/05/07 20:45

A: I don't think the modern beliefs of Christianity are the same as what the early Christians believed and taught. I think the early Christians had a message and a religion was built around that message over the course of hundreds of years. Remember, Jesus was "officially AS God" until the Council of Nicea around 600AD.

Name: pat440 • Date: 03/05/07 20:49

A: Robin, fact remains, we do know what the first Bible says. Jesus Christ, quoted the Old Testament affirmed its so-called mythical stories and presented the Old Testament as authority. Archaeology and history attest to the reliability of the Bible. Let me give you a historical fact to consider: Aristotle's Ode to Poetics was written between 384 and 322 B.C. The earliest copy of this work is dated A.D. 1100, and there are only forty-nine extant manuscripts. The gap between the earliest copy is 1,400 years. There are only seven extant manuscripts of Plato's Tetralogies, written 427-347 B.C. The earliest copy is A.D. 900--a gap of over 1,200 years.

What about the New Testament? Jesus was crucified around A.D. 30. The New Testament was written between A.D. 48 and 95. The oldest manuscripts date to the last quarter of the first century, and the second oldest to A.D. 125. This gives us a narrow gap of thirty-five to forty years from the originals written by the apostles. From the earliest centuries, we have some 5,300 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Altogether, including Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic, we have a whopping 24,633 texts of the ancient New Testament to confirm the wording of the Scriptures. SO bottom line is this: there was no great period between the events of the New Testament and the New Testament writings. Nor is there a great time lapse between the original writings and the oldest copies. With the great body of manuscript evidence, it can be proved beyond a doubt, that the New Testament says exactly the same things today as it originally did nearly 2,000 years ago.

As far as Christians thinking that there way is the only way. Well Christianity is not the way, Jesus is. In fact He said He was. "I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE, and no man comes to the Father but by me."-John 14:6. Either He told the greatest lie that has ever been told, or He told the greatest promise and truth that has ever been stated. Buddha never made such a claim. Muhammad never made such a claim. And Mahatma Ghandi acknowledged the inability of his religion to atone for sin. Despite his moral lifestyle and good works, he admitted, "It is constant torture to me that I am still so far from Him whom I know to be very life and being." Only Jesus did made the claim, and He backed it up when He arose from the grave.

Robin, no matter how decent or moral we think we are, we have all sinned against God and His holy Laws. To see how you fare against God's standard, read the Ten Commandments (given in Exodus chapter 20). God's concern isn't whether or not we believe in Him; the Bible says that even the demons believe--and tremble. God commands that we repent of our sins and trust Jesus Christ alone for our salvation. If we refuse to do that, we will be given RIGHTEOUS justice on the Day of Judgment and we will perish. "But God demonstrated His own love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 20:49

A: betty47

"But people truly believed all this happened 2000 years ago and were willing to die for it and commit horrible violence in the name of Christianity throughout the centuries"

What about the millions that died in the name of evolution? Hitlers plan to eradicate the Jewish kind because he thought they were weak. Taking "natural selection" into his own hands. Or the two kids that went into the Columbine High School and killed students that believed in God. But the media didn't like to mention that they were wearing shirts that said "natural selection" on them, and in their journals at home they wrote they were fascinated with Darwin and natural selection. Don't make it sound like its all one sided. Do some research...

Name: hermit • Date: 03/05/07 20:56

A: Robin you are correct and fine. It was the mans words not the body. And you are also correct G-d does not neeed you to be Christian or jew or muslim, Just be good. And now that everyone Knows Jesus was just what he said he was, a Man. The Physical body died and he lived on
he ascended, anyone can do that if you work at it an be good. He just wanted everyone to be Good and Loving... No you and no one should ever be scared into a religon that is Not G-dlike at all.

Name: HeatherC0320 • Date: 03/05/07 20:56

A: A: JSM

I don't think Hitler and Columbine are examples of murder for evolution. Rather murder by individuals who could have been clinically diagnosed as mentally unstable.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 20:56

A: Guahold
Actually, the Bible doesn't say the earth is flat, and in fact, some of the first references where the Vatican has stated that this was against Church doctrine was on the basis of commentaries on the book of Job, due to a phrase involvinge the Sphere of the Earth hanging on nothing. The idea of a flat Earth came into Church dogma through Aristotle, not from the Bible. Incidentally, arguments that the Bible teaches that the earth is the center of the universe are the equivelent of my declaring you believe that the earth is the center of the universe, because I heard you mention that you saw a beautiful sunrise: in both cases I'm reading meanings into an expression that is obviously contrary to your intent.

As for Facts, I've cited those ad. Nausium, if your interested in facts, you'll check around, if your not (as I suspect) then it saves me the trouble of typing it out again. Frankly, you are far more closeminded than most believers that I know.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 21:01

A: HeatherC0320

As for the kings that sent out their troops to kill for the name of Christianity. Either go to war, or die as a traitor. Either way, its not a good argument to use against Christianity. It needs to be laid to rest.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 21:01

A: Robin, the first law of logic states that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time, in the same way, therefore, it is impossible to argue that all faiths can somehow lead to the same place, examine the evidence I've put in other places objectively, if your capable of it.

As for God being loving, yes He is, He is also just, and therefore judges man. The Bible also tells us he left a witness in nature, a witness man in his hubris tends to reject. The problem with your argument is that it assumes man deserves better, from a Christian worldview.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 21:02

A: Nobody will know if they were crazy or just power hungry and looking for an excuse

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 21:03

A: JSM, glad to see you here.

Name: pat440 • Date: 03/05/07 21:03

A: Hermit,
Jesus said, "before Abraham was I AM." - John 8:58. He also said that "unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."--John 3:3. Where did you get your statements from? Do you consider yourself to be a good person?

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 21:08

A: Hermit, check what I've noted on the NT in other areas, I've posted it so often that I'm tired of doing it over and over. There is no evidence that Jesus did not claim to be God, as he did in John 8:53, naming Himself YHWH. The Talmud records that the Jews had him executed due to his sorcery and Blasphemy (which was the charge noted in the New Testament). Therefore, it seems highly unlikely that this is something Christians invented later.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 21:09

A: Sorry, Hermit, getting tired, and I forgot to finish. You need to evaluate Jesus on the basis of the sources, not on what people say.

As for being scared into salvation, an old preacher summed it up quite well - "To love God is to fear God, and to fear God is to love God." Remember, it is not an New Testament text, but one of the Old Testament proverbs that tells us that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 21:10

A: robin

Were not scared into worshiping god or go to hell. Gods gift to us was free will. Thats the whole "if gods knows everything why would he create Lucifer knowing he will turn on him". Because if we didn't have a choice or freewill it wouldn't be true love. This is you exercising your free will not to believe what god wrote. If you wish not to believe him, he loves you, but he will be just in your decision. He only wants people in his kingdom that truly believe in him and truly love him. Not made to trust him and not made to love him, but exercising their free will to truly love him. So using the "if he's so loving why would he send people to hell for eternity" is a futile argument. You cant change your mind when its proven to you when you die, because then you truly don't love him. You just want the rewards

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 21:12

A: Heather, We can certainly connect Hitler's evolutionary philosophy to his murder, since his religion was a combination of Social Darwinism and German Occultic belief. Incidentally, Darwin's supporters are the primary cause of late nineteenth and early to mid twentieth century racism.

Name: hermit • Date: 03/05/07 21:14

A: Pat440

your bible quotes are nice but have no real point, don't go quoting scripture without understanding all that is there. That nonsense is done all the time to attempt to prove a point when in fact it is the refuge of people who donot understand what they are quoting and just trying to force their Point of View on someone else. Being reborn has nothing to do with any christian religion as it is structured today. John Baptised Jesus symbolically for him, with water. This was just a physical demonstration. The REAL REBIRTH is the Spirit that is NOT Physical or tangible in the common Mundane way of Seeing.

A person can be reborn in spirit without the help of anyone or water. They just have to know they are part of G-ds creation, and behave the way Jesus and Mary and James, etc., taught, The REBIRTH of the Spirit is all that matters, A Large River of water does not make any difference.

Name: HeatherC0320 • Date: 03/05/07 21:14

A: KRS:
Incidentally, Darwin's supporters are the primary cause of late nineteenth and early to mid twentieth century racism.

Okay, I'm willing to learn. Explain.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 21:16

A: HeatherC0320

Google Ota Benga

Name: Jeff Ward • Date: 03/05/07 21:17

A: This kind of discourse seems to be the typical path people always take. No matter what anyone person believes, this find beares investigation. To bury it in constant argument would be ashame. The IAA has botched the historical value of such finds and seems willing to dismiss any thought or evidence other than their own. Should we as a civilization be as dismissive? History is constantly being rewritten and to take a hand-off approach to such an historical find, because it challenges our beliefs, would be nothing less than tragic for every living soul on earth.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 21:19

A: The african pigmy that was made to live in a cage at a zoo with a chimpanzee to "show" the similarities. He was later released where he committed suicide for what people did to him.

Name: hermit • Date: 03/05/07 21:22

A: KRS

i am intrigued as to your point. In places one Gospel says he called himself the Son of Man in others he states he is Yeweh, In John's Revelation he says he is the "Bright Morning Star" ... The Current Bible you are quoting has been Revised many times and words in it have been changed, as to the winds of time and who wanted it printed. The Passages have been badly mangled over the years either by accidental mistranslation, or deliberate misquoting.because one person or the other wanted it that way, The King James Version was his point of View,
Or Popes etc.

I do in fact agree with you as to what the Crimes were he was charged with, in that you are correct

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 21:24

A: Jeff Ward

This is all just a money making scheme and you know it. The same way evolutionists come up with a "missing link" every so often. Magically every new "link" is always the oldest one discovered so the scientist can have their 30 seconds of fame. Evolutionists come up with these false discoveries so they can keep their financial grants from the government and national geographic memberships hot.

Name: betty47 • Date: 03/05/07 21:40

A: Wow. Look at all this discussion. It's great! This seems to be what the producers of the movie wanted to create...a healthy discussion. Anyway, JSM and KSM, all this nonsense about sin and judging is what Christianity loves to talk about...fear. Fear of hell. Fear of not getting to heaven. Fear of sins. What if there is no heaven and hell? Then what? The Huble telescope has explored to the ends of the universe and hasn't found heaven or hell yet. Maybe there is no heaven and maybe Christ never got there either. We don't know! No one knows until he comes back again and until he does, it seems foolish to talk about all this judging. I don't smoke, drink or gamble, but I don't do it because I'm afraid someone may judge me. I do it because it's the right thing and healthy thing to do. We should do what is right. We should live holy lives. We should love and be kind to others. That's what Christianity is about. All the judging and going to hell stuff is a little far fetched, in my opinion. But maybe it scares people enough to believe all these crazy stories after all these years.

Name: bella • Date: 03/05/07 21:42

A: Let's talk about faith. Any viewer that watches a 2 hr program and walks away convinced *without* researching for themselves is essentially convicted on faith. Without proof. You see, a film is much like the gospel narratives: it weaves a story that is geared towards one conclusion and everything in the story supports that conclusion and easily flows into it. People see DNA testing and they are wowed and convinced. They see patena tests on an ossuary that was never part of the find - don't believe me? Go and download the original findings on the Discovery channel. You will see that all the inscribed ossuaries, all the dimensions, and you will notice that the supposed missing one was NOT inscribed, outside of facade ornamentation. You will also see all the dimensions of each ossuary. You want to know why the James ossuary was connected by the film makers? Because James was quite an important figure, if there was a family tomb, he would have to be in it as well. It doesn't look good to have the James ossuary come from elsewhere and makes little sense in the case of a "family" tomb. There are just as many people blindly rejecting this on account of some spiritual belief as there are people accepting it by hearing key terms like DNA and testing and science and archeology.

Name: HeatherC0320 • Date: 03/05/07 21:42

A: JSM

Interesting, indeed. Will need to do more research. Thank you for the lead.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 21:50

A: Your welcome!

Name: Lynne57 • Date: 03/05/07 21:57

A: "But just as we found out the world is not flat and the world was not created in 8 day..."

Ooh, great point!! I bet they didn't even think of that...nah, they did, they just dismissed it, as it's GOD's work, and he can do whatever he wants, LOL....that irrepressable GOD....what will he think of next, LOL....been MIA for a LONG time now....

Name: pat440 • Date: 03/05/07 21:57

A: Hermit,
I don't understand your reference to "A Large River of water" and what it has to do with being born again. If you are making that statement in reference to baptism, well, baptism is a symbol of what happens to those who are "born again." Jesus was baptixed to be an example. He didn't need to be baptized. Simply because he didn't regeneration (to be saved). However you and I do. You charged me with not understanding what I quoted, however, you might want to read John 3 in its entirety. It is all about salvation for man. Nicodemus misunderstood the statement of the Lord of being born again as a physical act, not a spiritual act, or in other words, what is happening to a man's heart. Being born again is trusting Jesus-look at the context: John 3:15-20. The text says "believes in Him" or to trust in Him. You said we need to be good and loving, sorrry Hermit you and I aren't good enough. And by the way, you can't be reborn in spirit, alone. God must save you from your sins.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 21:57

A: betty47

I have no fears, for I know where I'm going when I die, I have no fears because I trust in the lord Jesus Christ to lead me through my life. I have no fears for you going to hell because I trust in the holy spirit.

Matt. 7:7-11
7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

"The Hubble telescope has explored to the ends of the universe and hasn't found heaven or hell yet"

What a great scientist you'd make, because we cant see it... it must not exist. Maybe thats why gravity is still a theory.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 22:01

A: Lynne57

"But just as we found out the world is not flat and the world was not created in 8 day..."

It was actually created in 1 day.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 22:04

A: Hermit, check things out where I've posted it elsewhere. There is a lot of supposition about changes Christians have made to the New Testament, but the textual critical evidence doesn't support it out. We can actually be more sure of the wording of the New Testament than we can any other book in the ancient world. The copies of Luke and John from the second century are extremely close to the fourth century manuscripts that we possess. Check a few other threads for details, as I am weary of typing, but suffice it to say, the manuscript evidence doesn't bear out the conclusion for the kind of accumulation of errors present. Since most modern translations go back to the Greek, with the best text available (the exception being a few Catholic translations), the process of translations isn't going to bear that out.

Name: Lynne57 • Date: 03/05/07 22:06

A: A: Lynne57

"But just as we found out the world is not flat and the world was not created in 8 day..."

It was actually created in 1 day.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

I was quoting someone else, but thanks for clarifying. It makes the subject even more preposterous. My point was that the world was NOT created in 8 days, or even one. We know how old the earth is. Are you suggesting that GOD made the world old from the get-go. Righhhttt.......

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 22:10

A: Lynne57

Since its "proven" to be old, do you mind proving it to me. And don't mind being to technical, like I said earlier on the thread I hold two Ph.D's so it wont be over my head. Then if you'd like I could submit my evidence for it being young.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 22:16

A: Hermit, by the way, most of my study is from the Greek New Testament, so I don't have to worry about translational errors. Also, as for the Son of Man, its probably a reference to Daniel 7:14, a messianic title that some Jewish leaders, apparantely considered divine on the basis of Caiphas reaction in Mark 14:63 (its sometimes hard to say what the Saducees believed in many particulars since they didn't survive the Jewish War).

Name: Lynne57 • Date: 03/05/07 22:20

A: Ok, here's one;
http://pubs.usgs.gov-/gip/geotime/age.html
and- another;
http://www.talkorigins.org/fa-qs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold
Here's- another;
http://www.allaboutcreati-on.org/how-old-is-the-earth.htm
an-d- another;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
and still another;
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjp-s/1400/solar_origin.html
sigh....
ht-tp://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive-/releases/2002/10/layout/thumb/

I- could go on and on, but really, your mind will not be changed, and neither will mine. It's futile. I really have no need to discuss this with you. I could care less about YOUR credentials. Doesn't mean you have a rational mind, now does it.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 22:20

A: Lynne57

One of my all time favorites is that all coal contains Carbon 14. All living organisms contain carbon 12 and carbon 14. Both being the same when the organism dies. Then the carbon 14 decays where as the carbon 12 doesn't because it is stable. 6 & 6. So we have a starting point in the carbon 12 and a clock in the carbon 14. Carbon 14 has a max life of 60,000. So if coal is million and millions of years old why would there be carbon 14 in them. And please don't say contamination. Because that could be a few cases, but not every single time.

Name: hermit • Date: 03/05/07 22:23

A: KRS

I understand what you are saying and i do agree mostly, but there are the Gnostics, and other writings also... Yes your point is well taken, There is also the Jospeh of Arimethea bible kept by the Scottish Rite in scotland
this was a direct translation commisioned by Joespeh in 50 AD with what he had with him when he went to what is now Ireland, so some data is not there. But there is other work that is not in the current official bible.

and yes many like John do correlate to the texts from 400 AD this is true and i agree with you. but even then there had been some changes and people were being removed like the Gnostics.

There is so much we do not know and because of the wanton destruction of many writings by the Council of 900 AD we may never be able to piece it together.

Name: hermit • Date: 03/05/07 22:24

A: KRS

and yes like you i can not type alot the nerves in my neck tend to mess with my hands so i understand

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 22:25

A: Lynne57

Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape. Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years. This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

Name: hermit • Date: 03/05/07 22:30

A: KRS

the Greek one is Very Very Good, alot less monkeying around with it for sure
i have that one and do use it alot to cross check other things.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 22:31

A: Lynne57

DNA cannot last in the environment taking half lives for more then 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neanderthal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils. And as for fossils, I can send you the link to the publications of a Chinese scientist that created the very important first steps in the fossil process in the environment in 7 years.

Name: Lynne57 • Date: 03/05/07 22:32

A: The earth isn't made of coal, it contains coal. Coal is also formed over time. It could still be forming today, somewhere in the earth.

I didn't realize that coal was used for determining the age of the earth.....(roll eyes) here's a quote from Wikipedia;

The greatest coal-forming time in geologic history was during the Carboniferous era (280 to 345 million years ago). Further large deposits of coal are found in the Permian, with lesser but still significant Triassic and Jurassic deposits, and minor Cretaceous and younger deposits of lignite. In the modern European lowlands of Holland and Germany considerable thicknesses of peat have accumulated, testifying to the ubiquity of the coal-forming process.

I'm done with this futile conversation. Have fun with your silly theory. Coal, LOL..................

Name: Lynne57 • Date: 03/05/07 22:34

A: BTW JSM,

Nice cut & paste job;

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=nav-client&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2007-03,GGLG:en&q=t-hat+such+helium+produced+in+zircon+crystals+in+de-ep%2C+hot+Precambrian+granitic+rock+has+not+had+t-ime+to+escape%2E+Though+the+rocks+contain+1%2E5+b-illion+years+worth+of+nuclear+decay+products

Y-eah,- you're a PHD, LOL..............

Name: guahould • Date: 03/05/07 22:36

A: jsm,, sorry , I do not believe in evolution either!! I do not believe unbelievable stories of any kind.

Name: hermit • Date: 03/05/07 22:39

A: KRS said

A: Hermit, by the way, most of my study is from the Greek New Testament, so I don't have to worry about translational errors. Also, as for the Son of Man, its probably a reference to Daniel 7:14, a messianic title that some Jewish leaders, apparantely considered divine on the basis of Caiphas reaction in Mark 14:63 (its sometimes hard to say what the Saducees believed in many particulars since they didn't survive the Jewish War).

Yes i like this post , but in many palces he called himself alternately Son of Man and Son of G-d. It is in the closing paragraphs in Revelation when he calls himself the "Bright Morning Star".

From the Greek you must however work backwords to the Hebrew
because of the Kaballah implications in some of the things he had said
and the Numbers. Then look to the Book of Jonah which in Mark i think or Matthew he said that was the Code to what he was doing.. I think that was mentioned in the spcial also but i was getting something at the time
so did not hear it good thing i taped it.

In Hebrew Numerology he was using that Son of Man is 666 whereas Son of G-d is 777. So you must check the Hebrew because in things he said Context was very important, sometimes the Greek looses the context because they may not have a word as a direct translation to the Hebrew or Aramaic that Jesus used.

Name: betty47 • Date: 03/05/07 22:47

A: Unfortunately, all of you who say evolution didn't happen are proving my point, I'm sorry to say. Many Christians have a hard time believing in science if it conflicts with their beliefs. Evolution happened. We evolved from monkeys or some similar ancestor and that's not in dispute at all. JSM, don't tell me you have a PHD in biochemistry and know more than everyone else. My father is an internationally known biochemist that made up the protocols that other biochemists follow today and he believes in evolution. But could God have created evolution? I'm willing to say that's possible. However, none of the learned scholars in this forum has presented any hard evidence to dispute this movie. You say there's not enough evidence in the movie, but you've provided no evidence at all on your side. Just because something is in the New Testament doesn't mean this movie is incorrect.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 22:52

A: Lynne57

I didn't feel like typing it out cause it is late where I live. But if you'd like I'd give you another example. As for the primordial soup, the wonderful story of us crawling up out of the water. As you might know or might not know, but you can wiki it if you'd like. DNA is made up of amino acids. But as you put amino acids in water you watch as they break apart. It only took at week to shoot down that theory. Where as you know water is H20. The one oxygen atom in the water squeezes its way in between the amino acid chain and breaks them apart. This is known as the Law of Hydrolysis. The building blocks of life cannot live within water. Its necessary for life, but detrimental to the beginning of life. Thats where they changed their story again and said it wasn't in water but began on land and the early earth had no oxygen. But yet again it didn't take long to figure this one out where as without oxygen you wouldn't have an ozone layer and amino acids are very delicate and burn up without an ozone layer. So then they changed their story again and came up with the idea where the early earth was made of ammonia, methane gas, sulfur, etc... its a nice theory, the only problem with the theory is theres not one single bit of evidence that the earth ever was saturated with this. Not to mention that the oldest rocks known on the earth when studied show that the early earth had much more oxygen then today, as much as a million times more oxygen then today. Thats a huge problem as I stated earlier with the oxygen atom breaking apart amino acids.

Name: betty47 • Date: 03/05/07 22:57

A: What??!! If oxygen breaks amino acids, we'd all be dead. Oxygen is needed in our cells and we all have amino acids in our cells.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 23:08

A: betty47,

An enzyme (protease) that fermentative bacteria create break down proteins. This enzyme separates polypeptides into peptides or proteins into amino acids. This is what hydrolysis is, an h20 molecule squeezes in between the amino acid chain. Once the bond breaks it results in an H+ and the OH- Acid and Base.

2C3H7NO3 + O2 ---] 2HC2H3O2 + 3H2 + N2 + 2CO2

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 23:11

A: betty47,

Sorry its late, you might not have understood what I mean. I didn't mean destroys amino acids, but breaks the amino acid chain (protein) down into amino acids.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 23:23

A: Hermit, thats not a problem, considering that the gnostics are a later sect, developing near the beginning of the second century. A lot of writers have tried to move this forward, but the major problem is that the first reference to something that is clearly gnostic in its writing is AD 85, and thats the book of First John. As for Jospeph of Arimathea going to Scotland, that tradition is so late, it has no validity at all. The reference to the council of 900 is greatly overstated.

Name: ddlugose • Date: 03/05/07 23:26

A: Betty47 is mis-informed when it comes to christians. Most christians embrace science as it furthur proves belief. Much of what the bible claimed for years as faith has been held up recently by science and not disproven. Scientists commonly exclude scientific data that does not fit with the theory of the day. The fact remains is that Christians know that faith has nothing to do with proof. We dont need to prove some thing Jesus did 2000 years ago when he has done something for us today.

As for the talk of evolution mentioned, remember there are 2 types of evolution: Macro and Micro. Micro has scientifc proof up the ying yang but macro evolution has very little proof for the millions of years of skeletons that should be lying around. The fact is that most evolution theries have come from samples of part of one skeleton and not even a whole complete set of bones. Wouldn't science and statistics say there should be a minimum of hundreds or thousands of skeletons slowly transforming? It's funny, I (a Christian) don't believe in evolution because the science is weak.

We all have to be open thinkers. Not just the Christians.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 23:29

A: betty47,

Or explain this to me, for things to grow and gain in complexity they must meat 4 requirements according to the second law of thermodynamics.

1.) There must be an object, lets say a flower
2.) Must be a source of energy (raw energy), lets say the sun

Now thats where about 90% of textbooks leave it, they say theres 2 requirements, when in actuality there is 4, but why are the other two left out? because evolution cannot explain it how it originated.

3.) Must have a mechanism to capture the raw energy
4.) Must have a mechanism to convert the raw energy into useful energy (photosynthesis).

Evolution cannot explain where 3 and 4 came from so they just leave it out of the textbooks, thats good science right there.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 23:32

A: ddlugose

Well put, and were not the "logical" thinkers

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 23:38

A: betty47,

Not only are there problems with proteins breaking down, but DNA also. DNA is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, alkylting agents, reactive oxygen species, and yes again water. Something so delicate forming and surviving on an "early earth full of methane, oxygen, sulfur, lighting etc..." please.... but then again... survival of the fittest.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 23:40

A: I'd be careful about working back to the Hebrew (or rather Aramaic, since Jews didn't speak Aramaic at this time). While many of Jesus sermons were probably taught in Aramaic, we can't be sure that all of them were: remember most Jews in Galilee were truly bilingual, there are some inscriptions, and backtranslation can be problematic with extended material. Remember as well that the Gospels were originally written in Greek, and we are not sure how dynamic the gospel writers were, and how often they summarize a portion of a sermon. Additionally, its been my experience that when someone tries to reverse engineer a translation, and we can compare their product back to the original, they tend to be pretty far off.

As for Kabballah, its not really useful in scholarly work.

Name: betty47 • Date: 03/05/07 23:43

A: JSM,

Thanks, but you're confusing evolution and biology and clearly trying to confuse anyone who refutes you. What's the latest textbook you've seen? My son is in 7th grade. His books clearly explain about capturing raw energy and converting it.

Name: betty47 • Date: 03/05/07 23:47

A: JSM,

You need to get some current textbooks because things have changed a bit in 2000 years! You have some catching up to do.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/05/07 23:55

A: betty47

Then by all means... explain to me how there (by gradual beneficial mutations) comes about a mechanism that captures raw energy. Since your sons 7th grade text book explains this apparently. I know you cannot explain it, and thats why I'm saying... you have faith that it did happen by gradual beneficial mutations through natural selection. Its faith because there is not one single bit of evidence that it was an evolved trait and you cannot explain how it happened. And faith is religion. So why is my religion crazy, but your religion not? There is a lot of things I cannot explain with my religion, but I trust god, and you seem to want to condemned us Christians because we do not have every single answer and say things like... "just have faith". And thats crazy, but thats the same thing your scientists tell you. Just have faith. Give it enough time and anything can happen.

Name: ddlugose • Date: 03/06/07 0:04

A: Christian: Where did the first peice of matter that started it all come from?
Evolutionist: I dont know exactly. It was just there.
Christian: OK so lets just say it is God.
Evolutionist: I cant believe in God.
Christian: But you can believe something came from nothing?

Name: samepstein • Date: 03/06/07 0:05

A: I couldn't agree more. I absolutely love being a Catholic but I also have a brain and I know that it is far from perfect. If he is in the tomb then we should be excited about this. His bones may be here but that doesn't mean that he isn't in heaven. Like you said, his words are still the same and what is wrong with learning more about him? He is the son of God but he was also human. I want to know more about him and I wish others felt the same.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/06/07 0:13

A: samepstein

The problem with there being bones would be that it contradicts the bible. Because it states that his tomb was empty, and that he also appeared later in human form with holes in his hands. So it is not possible that he left his body behind. Like the bible says. In the end times there will be many false Christs.

Not physically his son, he was part of the trinity. Their 3 different beings, but the same person. God the Father, God the son, and the Holy Ghost.

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

The Word was with God, and the Word was God. Explaining that Jesus is with God, at the same time as being God. Kind of a hard concept to understand how their two different beings, but the same. Its like having two oranges and saying theres two oranges, but theres also 1 orange.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/06/07 0:19

A: Betty as for errors in the film, first, remember that the burden of proof is on the producers to prove they have something that is actually a possibility, the burden is not on those who dissent from this new theory/evidence. In general, as a scholar, I would suggest that they have not met that burden of truth.

I've cited these elsewhere on the site if you need a fuller reference:

1. There is no historically reliable evidence to support the identification of Mariamne with Mary Magdalene. The method they use is, at best, circular, which means that their statistical numbers are off.
2. The archeologist who excavated the site has now gone on record and said the James ossuary is not the tenth ossuary, the dimensions are wrong, and that ossuary did not have an inscriptions. That guy notes that it was on his list, indicating he has notes on what was present.
- both of these significantly impact the statisical argument that the docudrama makes. (Incidentally, the archeologist has referred to the theory as non-sense).
3. Cherrypicking. They choose material in the NT that supports their case, but ignore material that creates problems for it: this is poor technique.
4. The spelling of Yose is not as rare as they seem to imply, its seen in several inscriptions in Galilee, and may have been a popular alternative form of Yoseph. It is found in Mark 15:40 (incidentally, this is in reference to a family that ha s three of the names in close proximity that are also in Jesus' family - Yoses, Mary, and James, and the relationships are identical to the family of Jesus).
5. One problem with the statistics, though I'm careful as I'm not a mathmatician. There data pool is built on a questionable method. They seem to have operated on the basis of inscriptions and documents from the time, this is probably going to create a skew in the data, making names common in wealthy familes seem far more common than they actually were.
6. Again, a problem with the stats: the method they indicate that they are using doesn't take the tendency to use family names into account, and this was a practice among first century Jews. It is far more likely, for instance, that a Galilian whose name was Jesus, who had a father Joseph would have a brother named Yoses than a someone named Jesus who had a father named James.
7. Final stats argument: they don't seem to have taken region into account, it is possible that some names, or forms of names may have been popular in the Jewish community outside of Jerusalem than it might be in the totality of the data pool
8. They are relying on some questionable translations of some of the ossuaries (particularly that of Miramne e Mara).
9. In general, the technique is sloppy.

Now, the following are related to the NT, but bear in mind, the New Testament is the only first century source that documents early Christianity. I've argued the stats for the Gospels elsewhere.

10. Jesus was from a poor family in Galilee, the NT only indicates that James and Mary might have lived in Jerusalem. As a poor family, they would likely have had trouble affording this tomb.
11. This requires that the disciples themselves lied about the resurrection and ascension, since the NT cites it as bodily. This means that many of these men were killed by the Romans for something that they knew wasn't true.
12. Finally, there is the general reliability for the gospels, particularly for Luke's credentials as a historian, also found on other posts. For someone who wrote a historical work that archeologists have noted for his attention to minute details might have overlooked something like this is absurd. The level, and quality of the evidence they have offered are insufficient to dismiss the gospel accounts.

Anyway, I may be back in a few days, but I need sleep.

Name: Daddyo • Date: 03/06/07 0:38

A: I very much admire those who truly do have faith in something higher. Many religions provide guidelines, hope, and community to those who want it, and that in itself is a human need in most everyone. In that regard I do not like remarking against others beliefs in almost all cases.

Referring to the ancient science vs. religion debate, in my own opinion the reason why a fair percentage of believers so vehemently defend their beliefs is because they are deathly afraid of burning in hell for thinking anything contrary to their teachings. It is natural to be scared of things we don't understand or are told to believe as consequences, in a way a child is afraid of the boogyman under his bed after seeing a scary movie. And nobody blames you for this, and I think we can all sympathize with each other on this point. As we grow & educate oneself in all areas, you see first-hand that there is no boogyman, nor magic, nor have we ever beyond a reasonable doubt experienced such things. Once you've cleared your head of fear, you'll be free...unfortunately many people absolutely require guidelines & fear, to keep them in-check. All my opinion and I'm entitled to it, as are you.

I don't think the makers of this film have a particular bias to/from faith, and they don't care to show one in the way they presented the material. It's too easy for us to show our biases, otherwise why else would all these religions be around to show us the way. I think the filmakers have a heck of a lot of guts for doing this, probably most all of us wouldn't do it due to their "fear". I admire them for the work they've done.

I find the notion fascinating that there may be physical proof of Jesus, and the power he had over people in an attempt to right the misguided world. If this notion is true, AND he were purely human, atheists would likely be stunned and have great admiration for him & his followers. Believe it or not this movie could create a sort of new followership, with all the positive attributes of Christianity.

To sum it up, there's a need for religion in this world, as well as science, but they will butt heads for centuries to come, since we haven't got a perfect solution yet to the problems of the people. But please listen & keep an open mind & not rationalization when you watch the movie. Let yourself be the judge, not just a book. And also note that no report is 100% accurate esp. when dealing with statistics of many variables. They've reported their findings, which always should be refined & debated. I think the statistical manner in which much of it was presented is very appropriate and an unbiased attempt of showing results.

Please keep the accusations & name calling out of these topics, it completely disqualifies oneself as a rational thinker, faith or not, and one's completely out of the discussion loop when committed. Thanks for reading, hope it added something...

Name: sgtdmski • Date: 03/06/07 3:30

A: It is amazing that