Jesus wasn't resurrected

[Jennasis]

So if ossuaries are only for bones...what did they do with the bodies before they had decomposed into just the bones? Were they buried and then dug up years later to be put into an ossuary? Were the bodied burnt or boiled to get to just the bones??

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

For you. You cannot know or even claim to know what MY path is supposed to be. And how about all those christians faiths that claim any other christian faith is wrong and you will only get to god if you follow their particular brand?

In the end, no one can make claim to what another person should believe. You can only claim and be responsible for yourself. Jesus may be YOUR path, but you have no right to say it should be everyone's.

Jesus had that right -- and He said it. But yes, we have the right to accept Him or reject Him.

 

[phillybeth]

So if ossuaries are only for bones...what did they do with the bodies before they had decomposed into just the bones? Were they buried and then dug up years later to be put into an ossuary? Were the bodied burnt or boiled to get to just the bones??

No, the bible is accurate on that fact- bodies were placed in a crypt, usually belonging to a family. Once the body had decomposed and nothing remained but bones, the bones were placed in ossuaries to make room for more bodies. I believe the ossuaries remained in the family crypt as well.

 

[magicmato]

Jesus had that right -- and He said it. But yes, we have the right to accept Him or reject Him.

Sadly, that is the thinking that starts Holy Wars. We are right, you are wrong. Our god is right, yours is wrong. Sure, maybe Jesus said it. Sure, maybe he meant it. But no one can know that is right. That is FAITH, not FACT. Every other religion (for the most part) claims to be the one and only way. They also claimed to be the one and only prophet/savior/whatever.

Your insistance that yours is the only way and should be the only way is just... well, I guess is the reason I choose not to belong to any established religion. I do not believe God requires us to have *insert religious group here* in our name to accept us when we die.

 

[Alicnwondrln]

Certainly it does. It's called faith. Makes perfect sense to me.

I'll still watch it just to see what ole Jim has to say, but that will be the end of it.

well thats your perrogative but makes no sense to me
I would think you want to have the open mindedness to watch and then take it or leave without discounting it BEFORE you see it
if we all discount everything BEFORE listening or watching what someone else has to say this would be a sad sad world

 

[jimmiej]

Threw his actions and teachings not accepting him as a savior though.

Then why did He have to die on a cross? He knew ahead of time this would happen. Actions/works put the emphasis on the individual. The Bible tells us our actions will never be enough. Jesus took our place through His death on the cross. His resurrection proved He was God.

 

[jimmiej]

I believe it does not matter which path we take, it only matters how we travel that path and what we do upon it.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[MassJester]

Then why did He have to die on a cross? He knew ahead of time this would happen. Actions/works put the emphasis on the individual. The Bible tells us our actions will never be enough. Jesus took our place through His death on the cross. His resurrection proved He was God.

Jim, my friend, people either see the beauty and truth of the message or they don't.

Perhaps they have their own beauty and truth that allows no room for this, and perhaps it is simply not their time.

In any case, a debate on the specifics doesn't seem productive.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Jim, my friend, people either see the beauty and truth of the message or they don't.

Perhaps they have their own beauty and truth that allows no room for this, and perhaps it is simply not their time.

In any case, a debate on the specifics doesn't seem productive.

The message is true for you, for me and for some others. Claiming that it is the truth for everyone or the only truth is an insult to people who have chosen another path with as much deliberation and concentration as we have put into choosing ours. It doesn't reduce our personal truth to allow others to have theirs.

 

[MassJester]

The message is true for you, for me and for some others. Claiming that it is the truth for everyone or the only truth is an insult to people who have chosen another path with as much deliberation and concentration as we have put into choosing ours. It doesn't reduce our personal truth to allow others to have theirs.

I wasn't suggesting that everyone should recognize this truth, just as I may be unable to recognize theirs. I simply suggested that these competing visions might exist, and debating them might not be fruitfull.

 

[schmitty]

Then why did He have to die on a cross? He knew ahead of time this would happen. Actions/works put the emphasis on the individual. The Bible tells us our actions will never be enough. Jesus took our place through His death on the cross. His resurrection proved He was God.

That has nothing to do with the quote you said.

 

[schmitty]

Jim, my friend, people either see the beauty and truth of the message or they don't.

Perhaps they have their own beauty and truth that allows no room for this, and perhaps it is simply not their time.

In any case, a debate on the specifics doesn't seem productive.

That is true and sadly Jim doesn't see the whole messege.

 

[Alicnwondrln]

The message is true for you, for me and for some others. Claiming that it is the truth for everyone or the only truth is an insult to people who have chosen another path with as much deliberation and concentration as we have put into choosing ours. It doesn't reduce our personal truth to allow others to have theirs.

very well said

 

[magicmato]

The message is true for you, for me and for some others. Claiming that it is the truth for everyone or the only truth is an insult to people who have chosen another path with as much deliberation and concentration as we have put into choosing ours. It doesn't reduce our personal truth to allow others to have theirs.

Very well said!

ETA: LOL.. funny that we posted the exact same thing!

 

[Fitswimmer]

I wasn't suggesting that everyone should recognize this truth, just as I may be unable to recognize theirs. I simply suggested that these competing visions might exist, and debating them might not be fruitfull.

That's not the way I read it, mostly because of this sentence:

people either see the beauty and truth of the message or they don't.

It implies that those who don't "see the beauty and truth" are somehow lacking and that's not something we can judge.

I'm not trying to pick on you or anything. I've been trying to be more sensitive to how posts sound to those who don't follow a religious tradition at all or follow one other than Christianity.

 

[MassJester]

That's not the way I read it, mostly because of this sentence:

It implies that those who don't "see the beauty and truth" are somehow lacking and that's not something we can judge.

I'm not trying to pick on you or anything. I've been trying to be more sensitive to how posts sound to those who don't follow a religious tradition at all or follow one other than Christianity.

No harm at all - I should have phrased it more carefully.

 

[jimmiej]

That has nothing to do with the quote you said.

I was replying to this:

Originally Posted by schmitty
Threw his actions and teachings not accepting him as a savior though.

My question to you is, if we can only get to God through Jesus' teachings & actions, why did He have to die on a cross?

 

[jimmiej]

Jim, my friend, people either see the beauty and truth of the message or they don't.

Perhaps they have their own beauty and truth that allows no room for this, and perhaps it is simply not their time.

In any case, a debate on the specifics doesn't seem productive.

Thanks for the advice, but I was simply replying to a comment I disagreed with.

 

[jimmiej]

Sure...it's the reason I'm actually agnostic instead of an atheist. But isn't it equally possible - if not considerably more so, since we have science that backs it up - that the earth has been here a lot longer than the bible claims, and that it evolved just the way science says it did? Why is an invisible creator somehow more believable than scientific data? Particularly in light of the fact that you must ignore facts in order to continue to believe?

Sure, it's possible. However, with all due respect to you, I cannot fathom the idea that "it just happened." The complexities & vastness of our universe, for me, cry out for a creator. As you have stated above, evolution is not 100% foolproof.

Btw, I don't think the Bible is actually 100% clear on the age of the earth. Scripture tells us God's idea of time is beyond our understanding.

 

[ZuZugal]

unless you are willing to look at FACTS and mae your own determination wihtout just saying its nonesense theres no use even replying on this thread

I believe that anyone here who is a registered user is allowed to post on this thread whether they comply to your rules of hearing the FACTS first. (And on a side note I do not consider J. Cameron's findings as FACTS.)

Recent article rebutting the "claim"

please see the above post on page 16. Maybe the quotes from actual archaeologists and biblical scholars indeed hold the FACTS.

well thats your perrogative but makes no sense to me I would think you want to have the open mindedness to watch and then take it or leave without discounting it BEFORE you see it
if we all discount everything BEFORE listening or watching what someone else has to say this would be a sad sad world

I don't expect my opinion to make sense to you. It just has to make sense to me. In some ways this is already a sad sad world. Thus I am glad I have my faith.