|
Post by Northie on Mar 5, 2008 14:57:02 GMT
for those of you who have been reading the Desert Island Disks thread on DM, you will know im currently exploring the concept of Christianity. from what i have learnt over the past few weeks, i think all christians would agree that the fundemental pivotal point of the entire story of Jesus is the resurrection. this was the final proof that Jesus is the son of God. Also, all the evidence i have seen supports the resurrection, and therefore the only explaination of how this is possible is that Jesus is the son of God. However. i was in waterstones today looking at books which would dispute that Jesus is the son of God...and one of them was called "Jesus's Family Tomb". So i went home and looked online for evidence of this and there has been a documentary made on the discovery channel of it. Basically, about 25 years ago a tomb was found in Jerusalem. Inside the tomb were ten bone boxes, some of which had inscriptions. One of these inscriptions was Maria, another Mariamne, one Joseph, one Matthew, one Joses, one James, one Judah Son of Jesus, and one Jesus Son of Joseph. link - dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000the program claims that even if these are indeed Jesus' remains, then this does not shake the foundation of Christianity, as Christ could still have risen spiritually leaving his remains on earth. to my mind this does not work...even if the body had been moved by disciples to the family tomb, people would have known...so why are the objections of the time to the resurrection not "if He was raised to heaven, why is his body still on earth?" also the definition of resurrection then required the physical ascension. this isnt fabricated evidence...its from the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel who interviewed the foremost scholars on the evidence for the resurrection - all the objections were disproved. help?
|
|
|
Post by kingkastschei on Mar 5, 2008 16:04:55 GMT
I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but I believe the the resurrection was physical and real. I think you are definitely on the right track as far as looking for evidence materials and Lee Strobel's books are fantastic! He's written several books other than "The Case For Christ" that deal with specific objections to the Bible and the stories therein. Another source to look at is Josh MacDowell. (I believe his name is...) He's got some great books on the evidence for Christianity as well.
I wish you well in your search for answers, and am confident that you will find what you seek! Good Luck!
|
|
|
Post by daetirion on Mar 5, 2008 16:08:46 GMT
AFAIK no major religion endorsed/accepted the results
and given the fact some of those names are exceedingly common i would tend to disregarding the discovery and going with what your church teaches
Very much a believer in the physical actuality of the resurrection
|
|
|
Post by Northie on Mar 5, 2008 16:17:28 GMT
well thats is isnt it...i set out to find evidence for the Bible and found it. then i thought - "ok well lets look at the objections" and i found archaeological evidence which could prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus' remains remained on earth which seems to disprove this fundamental belief of Christianity. and the more i think about it, the more it fits in with the other evidence...and the more it fits in with the other evidence, the more it contradicts the theory that Jesus was divine in the sense the Bible dictates...
HOWEVER
if it was a spiritual resurrection, which seems to contradict an entire chaper of Strobel's book, then none of this matters...
so which do people believe the resurrection is? spiritual or physical?
id also like to make clear that i believe that even if Jesus has a wife and child it would not make one iota of difference to the fundamental belief of Christianity - he had brothers and sisters, why not a wife and child? either way, thats not an issue.
the other weird thing is ive been listening to radio 4 for alot of today while doing my research project...and the areas of Christianity im considering have come up at least 4 times...there was a whole program on Mary Magdalene and now the resurrection has been mentioned...
oh how i dislike being confused....
|
|
|
Post by Sir Uasal Arach on Mar 5, 2008 16:18:36 GMT
I'll take a stab at this lol.
OK. First of all, is the Bible fact or fiction? Personally I believe fact. Throughout history people have tried to prove different things told in the bible to be false. To my knowledge that has never happened. Everything has either been proven true or the evidence for it is still being sought. Such as the Arc of the Covenant and Noah's Ark.
Now if something cannot be proven it doesn't mean it is not true. It just means there is no evidence to support one way or another. If you are a scientist worth your salt that is. This is where faith comes in, as far as the bible is concerned.
Take for instance the birth of Jesus. When was he really born? No one really knows the exact date. But, both secular and nonsecluar can agree that he was born sometime between early 5 BC and late 4 BC (BC is a moderen term that wasn't used back in Jesus day). This can be determined through historical documents like the writings of Josephus, a historian accepted by the scientific community, the bible, and other writings. So, through the process of elimination and gathering of facts we can place Jesus birth at an approximate time. This is fact. But you may say there is no record that says "Jesus, son of Joseph was born on this date in Bethlehem". OK. When did the dinasors die? What was the exact date? NO ONE KNOWS! It is a best guess from the scientific community. Same thing with the birth of Christ.
As to the remains that were found. Think of the popularity of Jesus. How many men were named Joseph and Jesus back then? The Bible even says Jesus had brothers. So where is the confusion? There could be dozens of reasons for those names on the coffers. Does it mean they are the actual remains of Jesus, Jesus of Nazerith, the Jesus that was crucified on a cross? NO. They are the remains of "a" person named Jesus. There is a difference.
Now for physical or spiritual ascention. What do you believe? There is no physical evidence to support the resurection of Jesus. There is no physical evidence to support the physical ascention of Jesus to heaven. This does not mean it didn't happen. In the end there are many things in the bible that have to be taken on faith. Even our own salvation is based on faith, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast…" Ephesians 2:8-9. So again I ask... What do you believe?
I hope this helped.
|
|
|
Post by Odette on Mar 5, 2008 16:19:56 GMT
I so could have sworn I posted here. Maybe it's a sign I should keep my mouth shut. ^_^
|
|
|
Post by Northie on Mar 5, 2008 16:23:27 GMT
in response to dae's post...yes the names are common. but. out of 1000 of these boxes found in the area, only 2 have had the inscription "Jesus son of Joseph". and the chances of this collection of names being all together in the same tomb is about 600 to 1 i think if you go and read the stuff on the discovery website.
also john states at the last supper that jesus had a "lad" in his lap.
also like to point out im not religious...so seriously all help is appreciated! what is really frustrating is that i have no way to actually watch the program....grrrrrrrr....
|
|
|
Post by stefaniasedai on Mar 5, 2008 16:34:50 GMT
The Bible says that Jesus allowed Thomas to touch the holes in His hands when he was in doubt, and I don't believe that could have been done if He only resurrected spiritually. I watched the documentary, too, and I've read articles. But for every piece of evidence that pops up seeming to negate Christian beliefs, another piece of evidence arrives to affirm it. Of course you will have an easier time finding evidence to dispute the divinity of Jesus because in popular culture if you argue against Christianity it is called "research" but if you argue for it, it is called "fanaticism". Northie, like Uasal said, the very foundation of Christainity is faith. I have faith that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on a cross, and rose again on the third day both spiritually and physically. Regardless of what tomorrows "researchers" come up with or what makes the evening news, "I know Whom I am believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I've commited unto Him against that day".
|
|
|
Post by Odette on Mar 5, 2008 16:35:39 GMT
What I was going to say was:
It doesn't matter.
*nods*
The fundamental most basic tenants are still sound. Be nice to people, etc.
It's the belief that counts. Or so I'm told. ^_^
|
|
|
Post by Northie on Mar 5, 2008 16:39:42 GMT
what do i believe...hmmm. well first what i think anyone who has studied the evidence would accept as fact:
i think that the new testament is an accurate historical account of that time. it is heavily collaborated by many sources and is probably one of the best supported documents in history. i cant say the same for the old testament, however at the moment thats not really an issue. i also know that you cannot prove everything - you have to go with faith at some point.
what i believe...
1. Jesus existed 2. his time of birth, his family, his miracles do no have anywhere near as much bearing on who he is as much as his death and resurrection 3. there is alot of evidence to support the resurrection 4. God...good question. i dont believe in God in the christian sense...and even though Jesus said that we are created in God's Image, i find that statement incredibly arrogant at first. and then the word "IMAGE" becomes important....and then i get stuck 5. i am a scientist. and therefore im thinking of this as a scientific investigation. at the moment i have a hypothesis: Jesus is the Son of God. and as anyone who has studied hypthesis testing will know, you cannot accept the hypthesis - you can only reject or not reject it. based on the evidence so far, i do not reject this hypothesis. a scientist will then see if the hypothesis stands up over time and as things develop...and now im stuck
i really need to watch this program....
|
|
|
Post by Northie on Mar 5, 2008 16:45:48 GMT
hmmm...this is definitely helping!! merci to everyone so far!
yes his teachings are important....but the reason why Christians wear a cross is because Jesus died for our sins so that we could be accepted by God into Heaven. if you take away the resurrection, which is the ultimate "I AM THE SON OF GOD" statement by Jesus, you take away his ability to take away our sins, and therefore you make the religion into a group of people believing something false, something others have died hideously for.
faith is a big thing. and possibly one of the hardest things a person has to do i think....i dont know if others agree....
|
|
|
Post by stefaniasedai on Mar 5, 2008 16:51:26 GMT
Me again! Well, one of the greatest philosophers to ever live was the infinitely wise Vinnie from the television show Doogie Howser, MD. Anyways, in one episode, Vinnie has become a Christian and Doogie, being a scientist, just can't accept anything on faith. Vinnie's last remarks on the subject were (and I paraphrase here): "So what if I'm wrong? What's it gonna hurt?"
|
|
|
Post by Northie on Mar 5, 2008 17:06:06 GMT
good question...will have to think on that one
just going on momentary inspiration here....i actually went to a talk entitled "how can a scientist be a christian?" last week. very interesting considering we are the leading scientific university in the UK and at what was said. main points were:
a) Genesis works. the Big Bang - "and then there was light" quite literally. evolution - God didnt create everything at once....it was a gradual process...so why not a gradual process with humans? also if you consider the universe as an expanding bubble, whats on the outside of the bubble?
b) the universe has a certain sense of design to it and is actually based on remarkably few constants
c) the Bible encourages science as the more we understand about the universe and the world around us, the more we understand God
d) God is like an asymptote - you can get close to understanding, but you can never understand totally
so if you consider these points, the thing about the Big Bang and Evolution is that they are THEORIES which means that accepting a theory/hypothesis involves a certain degree of faith in order to base further theories/hypotheses on this. so really science and faith go hand in hand....
also consider that the basis of all modern science i.e. the atomic THEORY is just a theory...
so yes faith is a very important factor....especially for a scientist! lol!!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Uasal Arach on Mar 5, 2008 18:05:40 GMT
So what would be the next logical step, scientificlly speaking? Is it that much of a leap of "scientific faith" to believe in the existance of God, Jesus: death, resurection, physical ascention? As you said faith is important for a scientist. But science is also based on facts, 1+1=2, Pathagreons Theorum, E=MC2 and so forth. These facts can in themselves be applied to understanding the bible. The same process used to prove those same facts can be used to prove, do prove, and help understand the bible.
Sorry if I seem overbearing, not meaning to lol. It's just that much of what I believe is based from the bible... and faith. I heard something once and it's always stuck with me.
"If all the religions in the world are right then I have nothing to lose. I can come back as an animal, or die and that's it nothing else, die a martyrs death and have a bunch of virgins. But, if I follow one of those religions and Christianity is right... I'm doomed."
|
|
|
Post by Northie on Mar 5, 2008 18:56:25 GMT
ive heard that too. and i dont mind you being overbearing...i dont see how you cant be on something which you believe with your whole heart
and the only one of of those three example that i cant say with certainty is a theory is 1+1=2 as im not a mathematician. but they are "accepted fact" which requires faith
and in answer to your question, the next stage after the data collection is to say "well ok, i cant reject this hypothesis so im going to run with it and see how things turn out" which basically means accepting Jesus as my lord etc and then seeing how things pan out over life. i.e. joining the asymptote
|
|