Jesus wasn't resurrected

[Saxsoon]

i agree. but with all of the Christian DIS members, it's gonna cause an uproar.

honestly, i just don't get why it would make a big difference if he weren't resurrected and had a child. he still did great things.

Why wouldn't it send us into an "uproar"?

The child part I could care less about. But the resurrection as stated in this thread by many is what created Christianity. Without the resurrection, it would have turned into the Jim Jones cult. Without it Jesus would have just been a man, a good man who did great things, but a man not worthy of worship and praise.

The reason people were saying this was a popcorn muncher was because of the drama that would insue between us disers.

 

[MassJester]

i agree. but with all of the Christian DIS members, it's gonna cause an uproar.

honestly, i just don't get why it would make a big difference if he weren't resurrected and had a child. he still did great things.

Well, I suppose it's simply a matter of perspective, but I think the difference between being a man who did "great things," and a man who was the son of the one true God who rose from the dead after dying for our sins is not particularly small.

 

[reeeoga]

Exactly.

Christians shouldn't credit Jesus with the majority of their currently held beliefs, but, rather, Paul (and the Council of Trent).

Everybody always mentions Paul. What about George, John and Ringo? They where influintial.

This is good pres. , for the moment, for the movie. I don't take much credit in what anyone in the movie indistry say about anything outside that indisrty.

 

[Stitchfans]

It is a pretty big deal, though. At least in the Catholic faith. It's even in THE prayer of what we believe... "...he suffered, died and was buried. On the third day, he rose again, if fufillment of the scriptures." And Easter is THE holiest of holy days.

But everyone is entitled to believe what they want. This is America. If James Cameron wanted to make a movie saying Jesus was really Satan, he could. The believers will still believe. The non-believers still won't.

I really don't think anybody will care all that much. But I've been wrong before.

Cameron just like anyone else is doing this for the publicity. As said though believers will still believe and non- believers still won't. What Cameron has to say is of no importance.

 

[agnes!]

It is a pretty big deal, though. At least in the Catholic faith. It's even in THE prayer of what we believe... "...he suffered, died and was buried. On the third day, he rose again, if fufillment of the scriptures." And Easter is THE holiest of holy days.

But everyone is entitled to believe what they want. This is America. If James Cameron wanted to make a movie saying Jesus was really Satan, he could. The believers will still believe. The non-believers still won't.

I really don't think anybody will care all that much. But I've been wrong before.

Great post.

Actually, that creed that you quoted is one of the major 'Creeds' of the Christian faith & is known as (I think) The Apostles' Creed. I'm not Catholic, but I've always said it in any church I've attended.

And you're right...I've always said that without Easter, Christmas is meaningless.

agnes!

 

[arminnie]

But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests

This struck me as funny. Did Maury have the tests done? Did they have to get God's DNA? Did they prove he was or was not the son of God?

 

[GeorgeG]

It's obvious this debate could go on forever. I tend to believe this movie will not produce any real evidence that will prove or disprove traditional belief.

Now, just suppose if one day, and that's still a pretty big if, serious research produces absoluty conclusive evidence that Jesus was not the son of God and was not resurected. I have no idea what such evidence might be, but we're talking "what if" here. Would that necessarily change very much?

Whether dictated by God or just set forth as such by men with much wisdom, most of the teachings are good ways to live our lives, very good common sense. That has to count for something, even if the commonly believed source has been disproven. It's still the way we should lead our lives.

I'm not religious by any account, but I do see the common good religion does for a lot of people. Would Christians suddenly become bad people if their Jesus was taken out the the equation? I don't think so. They would still be Christians because their way of life, which happens to be good, has always been based on a man who at least started a common idea among followers. If he wasn't who he claimed to be would be of little significance.

It may not work for me, but it obviously works. That's just one heathen's opinion.

 

[Lanshark]

For those who are firm in their belief his claims won't change their minds.
For those who don't believe, his claims will only strengthen their stance.
For those who are not firm in their beliefs either way, his claims may give them reason to further question and search.

Bottom line, as I said, he is getting press and will probably make a load of money. He is entitled to his opinions and we are entitled to think he is either a genius or an idiot.

 

[Disney Doll]

My faith won't change because of some guy in Hollywood who gets an oscar and yells "I'm the King of the world!"
Robin M.

What she said.

 

[honeymom]

I don't really see the purpose to this thread. I am Jewish and I don't see the point of trying to debate Christianity's beliefs. Do people actually think that because of James Cameron, that people will change their beliefs? Or, is this being done more to stir up trouble?

I resent when people try to convert me, but I respect their beliefs. I can't imagine why I would want to go to the trouble to argue that Jesus wasn't resurrected. All faith is just that - faith. We believe what we believe, because of our faith - not because of rock solid evidence.

 

[phillybeth]

This struck me as funny. Did Maury have the tests done? Did they have to get God's DNA? Did they prove he was or was not the son of God?

Jehovah, you........ ARE the father of Mary's baby!


No disrespect meant, just the thought of God and Jesus and Mary on Maury, I can't stop giggling.

 

[cardaway]

Sounds like something that would be interesting to see, but of course in htis country, you know, the one with freedom of speech and religion, there will be people doing everything in their power to keep me from seeing it.

He might as well title it The Last Tempation of Christ II.

 

[cardaway]

Now, just suppose if one day, and that's still a pretty big if, serious research produces absoluty conclusive evidence that Jesus was not the son of God and was not resurected. I have no idea what such evidence might be, but we're talking "what if" here. Would that necessarily change very much?

Nobody would ever know the evidence existed.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Sounds like something that would be interesting to see, but of course in htis country, you know, the one with freedom of speech and religion, there will be people doing everything in their power to keep me from seeing it.

He might as well title it The Last Tempation of Christ II.

Last Temptation of Christ was pretty good. I found that it accurately represented the choice that Jesus had to make. He chose to give up worldly power and a family to do God's will. I think the performances could have been better, and the writing was a little stiff-but the point made was the same as in this Sunday's Gospel reading.

I'm really against censorship in any form. I don't want the government or anyone else telling people what they can say, write, read or view. Of course, that goes as much for things like Cameron's movie and for things like Tim Hardaway's recent tirade against gay players. If we're going to allow free speech, we've got to allow the stuff we don't like too. That's where it gets sticky. For many of us, myself included, it's a lot easier to defend Cameron's right to make his movie, but not to defend Hardaway's right to say what he thinks. (even if it does make him look dumb)

 

[mirror mirror]

Sounds like something that would be interesting to see, but of course in htis country, you know, the one with freedom of speech and religion, there will be people doing everything in their power to keep me from seeing it.

He might as well title it The Last Tempation of Christ II.

Hey now, every Italian Catholic I know saw that movie, it was Scorcese you know. Viva Italia!

 

[cardaway]

Hey now, every Italian Catholic I know saw that movie, it was Scorcese you know. Viva Italia!

Unless it was banned from their local theater.

 

[mirror mirror]

Actually I may see this, as sometimes I believe, sometimes I don't. I know, not very good, huh?

edit: changed my mind, don't know enough about it. Let's just say, with the backlash against ultra-conservative, fanatical right wing Christians, (who bother me also) I think that the Christian who is open-minded, liberal, or whatever gets lumped in and not given a fair shake.

Or, everyone will see it and love it! I really don't know, just expressing opinions here. In fact, maybe we should see the movie first!

 

[mirror mirror]

Unless it was banned from their local theater.

I don't remember it being banned around here, maybe in smaller towns.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

I certainly think it looks very interesting and I'll definately watch when it comes to the Discovery Channel.

I've never been terribly bothered by the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene, quite the opposite in fact. I find it fascinating.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I don't remember it being banned around here, maybe in smaller towns.

I remember protests, but it certainly didn't stop anyone from going. Actually, I think all the fuss and protesting only made the film more popular. Scorcese got TONS of free publicity from the people railing against it. It wasn't too hard to find around my area, and then it was also released on VHS and on HBO too. Most everybody I know that wanted to see it had no problem.