They Found Jesus' Body!!!

My error is noted. He did say Solar system. And please don't try to say I lied.
God signature is revealed in the prophecies of the Bible. For only God knows the future. That's why christians who have studied the Bible knew that near the end of time the Jews would finally return to Israel. And they knew that when they would return the would retake southern Israel first(1948) and they would retake Jerusalem second(1967). They knew that Jerusalems East Gate would remain sealed till the end of time, and that it would only be opened when Christ would open it Himself. They knew that when the Jews did return, they would be surrounded by enemies. And they knew the day would come when man would finally have the ability to destroy Himself. And the reason we knew these things, is because the God of the Bible told us ahead of time.

Anyone can forge a signature, only God knows the future.

 

How bout posting the passages, and not someone's interpretation of these passage? Anybody can manipulate text to fit the events and predict what has already happened. See Nostradamus. The fact the Jews would come back to their homeland is an easy self-fulfilling prophecy, that's what they always wanted.

 

man think aboiut how much ther church can make off this they got prrof finaly he existed they can charge admission ..why are they upset
really i was hoping it was at lesst based on a person & not pure fiction...

 

No serious scholar (Christian or not) has any doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person.
Its never been a serious question.
The fact you were 'hoping' it was something other than 'pure fiction' really makes me wonder if you know anything at all about Christianity in history?

Interesting:
CNNs Anderson Cooper plugs the event with "...and something outraged Christians are calling 'Heresy'"

Reminds me of Davinci Code opening where false reports of 'hysterical judging Christians' were hyped like this.

Christians are not doing this.
Nobody is standing around like the Pharisees who sent Jesus to death pointing and crying 'Heresssssy!'.
What a crock.

"Ignited a firestorm' he says now.
'heating up'.

No, actually most people are looking at it and skeptical for some good reasons.
no 'HERETICCCCCs' crap.
Stuff like that just fools people like soaringeagle into justifying more hate.
Sad.

 

I don't know for sure what went down, but my study has brought me to this conclusion so far. If he was a real guy, he didn't die, but was put under by a herbal anaesthetic on a sop, then his live body was taken down, well within the time he could have survived on the cross. The body was not in the tomb because he was being given medical care by his compatriots, the Nazarenes, Nazoreans, Nazarites, by whichever name, a sect of Essene Jewish herbalists. I feel, as Skip does, the words are the thing, the rest is just coffee talk. If he married Mary, which I feel is pretty likely given all the biblical support for his being married, and the gnostic text references to his closeness with Mary. In Glastonbury, there is a tradition claiming Jesus went there, and I feel it was more likely his son. He may not have even existed. He may have been black. He is a hot topic anyway. My favourite theory is that he is buried in the side of Mt. Cardou, in southern France. Mary Magdalenes tomb was not far away, and Rennes Les Chateaux is nearby too. The clues that support that theory outweigh the Jerusalem tomb story evidence. On a related note, John, the apostle, was really Joanna, a woman, as painted in Leonardo's last supper. Some people think that is impossible, but it is really quite plausible. Giovanna, Giovanni, Johanna, Johannes, etc. the two names are the same name, accented to denote gender. The gospel of John is quite different than the three others, which is one of many indications of his/her secret. Da Vinci seemed to know, though many feel the woman is Mary, even though is has always been said to be his most beloved, John.

 

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity" Albert Einstein

‘Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. It is fearlessness, and it is love.’ Buddha

 

Well I have some non christians come to my door to, yet I invite them in and really enjoy the good conversation. Yet I must admit, they are the one's that usually get angry with me. Christians do get people up set, but they have been doing this for the last 2,000 years. Yet the Christians have helped countless people across the globe, and will continue to do this until Christ returns. When you know the truth it's hard not to pass it on.

 

Well I'm sure the six million Jews that died in Hilters camps did not think that was to easy.

The story of the Jews return to Israel in the latter years will be found in Ezekiel chapters 36,37,38,and 39.

 

There is no Biblical support for Jesus being married, and if you think there is, it's only in your own imagination. And the gnostic text were rejected long ago because they were written about some 300 years after the event, and they did not agree with the thousands of earlier copies of the Scriptures. The Bible tells us that the time would come when men would not endure sound doctrine. I believe the Bible was correct.

 

I forgot to mention that the bible says nothing of his marital status, you and I agree on that point. It does not say either way. But I have read a few bibles, and found lots of supporting evidence for his being a married man.
To summarize my reasons for thinking Jesus and Mary Magdalene were betrothed:



1. Mother Mary takes charge of supplying the wine when it ran out, an un explained and seemingly quite odd thing for a guest to do, when tradition is that the groom's family does so. Not odd if the groom is her son.

2. The couple who are married at Canaa, are curiously anonymous. Why?

3. Jesus supplies the wine, and the mc praises the groom, thereby supporting the traditional responsibility is the groom's family.

John 2:11 states that this is the 1st miracle, reveals Jesus' glory, and the disciples believed in Him.

4. Nowhere in the NT does it mention Jesus' marital status, one way or the other..........why? A valid question, I feel.

5. Over a dozen times He is called Rabbi, a title which had as a firm prerequisite that one be wedded.

6. So.....if He is not wedded, why does no one notice the obvious and comment on the contradiction?

7. Jesus preached that marriage is good, and divorce is bad. In this case, we are asked to believe that He did not take His own advice,

on top of the half dozen previous suggestive points. I look at Him as a do as I do, not do as I say kind of teacher, how do you see Him?

In the end, I don't care what happened 2000 years ago, and can't see how anyone can state for a fact they know what really occured today. It may be that the books supporting the theory Jesus was a created fictional character, likely by Josephus, the first writer to mention him. As you must know, no writer has been found who wrote of him while he lived, nor has their been a single existing account by anyone who supposedly actually saw him or even anyone in his entourage with their own eyes found. So without one contemporary account extant, belief in him being an actual person is total faith. Josephus was born after Jesus disappeared, and no other writer living in the area referred to him at the time he is said to have lived. Finally, I hope he was a real person, for some reason I can't quite pin down, but I really do.

 

Oh ... right ... Matthew 24:

24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.​

24:25 Behold, I have told you before.​

24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.​

24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.​

So what I see here is just another matter of intrepretation ... yours. He was not talking about finding his dead body, but what I see here is him talking about his appearance ... live and in the breathing flesh ... ???​

So, how did you get grave and bones out of this?​

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

​

 

I'd like to address this issue point by point.

Or maybe the groom was one of Christ's brothers or cousins. It would be odd if they were not family, I agree. However, it really could go either way on this one. One of Christ's brothers or cousins getting married would have equal power in explaining why Mary took charge.

Because the story isn't about them, it is about Christ and the miracle. Their identities are irrelevant.

Agreed. See point one.

Agreed.

There are at least two reasons that are good explanations.
1) The authors wrote in a high context society. As such, it would be expected that from clues in the text, the readers would know Christ's marital status.
2) It was irrelevant to the author. If it isn't relevant, then they aren't going to mention it.

I have heard that before. I have also heard that it wasn't an absolute standard or that it applied to Pharisees (also Rabbis) but not all teachers (which is what "rabbi" means).

The straightforward answer is that they didn't see a contradiction. If commentators didn't see a contradiction in the first and second century, then the odds that one of your premises (that He was unmarried; that Rabbi's *must* be married) is incorrect.

This is the best question, IMHO. Let me give you the answer that a trinitarian would give.

Marriage was instituted so that we can understand God and ourselves. The relationship that a husband and wife are to share reflect almost exactly the relationship of the persons of the Godhead. Selfless and sacrificial love, perfect and loving submission, loving care and keeping the other's best interest at heart, etc. These ideas originate in and are permeated by the concept of the Trinity. As such, if Christ really was God, then He is already in perfect union with the Father. Marriage to a human would be cheating in a very literal sense. His only love was the Father. His love and devotion to the Father was/is complete. So when He talks about marriage vs. divorce, He is completely speaking from a position of authority. He practices what He preaches far more completely than most people could ever hope to.

Rest easy. The support for Christ as a historical person is more robust than for any other ancient person.

 

Well, Skip I can tell you for a fact that while you often quote Buddha it's something he wouldn't allow. I don't see where he'd think it was a stone groove to act hateful towards a group of people.

Oh, of course it was JUST Christians that have been causing all the problems for 2000 years. I suggest a comprehensive study of history. While your studying history tell me which group of people is the most charitable. It's the Christians.

I'll go even further. What have you or your group "COOL" done to make the world a better place? Please don't tell me,"Well, we haven't killed people..." Y'all aren't in power right now. How much money have you given to charity? Volunteerism? Anything?

True, people have done WICKED things in the name of Christianity. People have done wicked things in the name of all major ideologies.

I invite you to look at which nations in this day and age afford the most rights to their citizens. It's nations that are predominately Christian.

Oh, and BTW It ain't Christ's body. Still praying for you Skipper.

 

First off great to have you back Dave! Hope you're doing well my friend!

My point with bringing up the point of charity was the fact that we were getting slammed back and forth! I just wanted to point out that there's Christian brothers who heard Christ and are out there doing the right thing. It seems like that's never brought up here. I'm sure there's charitable people of all faiths. Again though...There's also evil people of all faiths.

I'm probably more aggravated about people doing wicked things in the name of God more than anybody else. Why? Because, it disrespects my Savior and breeds bitterness in people. Just about the opposite of what Christianity is and was supposed to be.

 

I do not have a holier than thou attitude. You keep talking about Buddhism, here's a little fact sir...I studied Buddhism for some time. I still revere a lot of Buddhist teachers, monks and scholars. I was simply defending my faith with a fact that is overlooked.

Before, saying I have an attitude of being Holier than others I'd suggest you answer these questions.

1. Who started their own religion? You or I?

2. Who has turned this discussion into just simple Christian bashing? You or I?

3. Who has a website that talks openly about drugs then calls others addicts? You or I?

Skip, nobody whatcha do I still love you bro! God Bless!

 

Skip, you called me out SPECIFICALLY. Look up a few posts. You said Portal Guy. Why every single time I defend myself I'm out of line? I don't get it.

Anyway, I see where all this is gonna end up. To summarize my points and end this...

1. Wasn't Jesus or any descendants of his.

2. I'm praying that the C in COOL soon stands for Christ.

3. FedUp posted! Great stuff! Or should I say COOL!

God Bless!