Jesus wasn't resurrected

[JoyG]

Possible Bible verse of the day:

Ephesians 4:29-32

29Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

Amen.

 

[aquinas]

Again Aquias...why should I read someones blog??

Denny Burk is a no one...too top it off the "sources" are mostly from biblical scholars! Of course they are against it!!! (a few "popular media" links too. But even many of them come from places such as Christianity today and the Jerusulam News!!!!)

Where are the Historical Scholars??

Because he is collecting many different articles on the subject that do reference scholars and theologians. It is just a quick reference site for people to read different articles on it. This science fiction piece is being widely renounced from all sides.

But I ask you, why should I believe a biased science fiction piece released by Cameron and an Orthodox Jew who asks the viewers of the piece to make leaps and bounds to arrive to a conclusion? They found this tomb in 1980. It took 27 years to come up with DNA testing that only proves that two of the tomb residents werent related?

But I will leave you with more:

from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/?GT1=9033

"Simcha has no credibility whatsoever," says Joe Zias, who was the curator for anthropology and archeology at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem from 1972 to 1997 and personally numbered the Talpiot ossuaries. "He's pimping off the Bible … He got this guy Cameron, who made 'Titanic' or something like that—what does this guy know about archeology? I am an archeologist, but if I were to write a book about brain surgery, you would say, 'Who is this guy?' People want signs and wonders. Projects like these make a mockery of the archeological profession." Cameron's reply: "I don't profess to be an archeologist or a Biblical scholar. I'm a film producer. I found it compelling. I think we're on firm ground to say that much."

or here:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1593893,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

That last bit alone should give some sense of how problematic some of Jacobovici's conclusions are. A sampling of difficulties:

— If "Jesus" and "Mariamene" weren't related matrilineally, why jump to the conclusion that they were husband and wife, rather than being related through their fathers?

— The first use of "Mariamene" for Magdalene dates to a scholar who was born in 185, suggesting that Magdalene wouldn't have been called that at her death.

— St. Andrews' Bauckham defends his probabilities, noting that Jacobovici was comparing his name-cluster to the rather small sampling of names known to have been found on bone boxes, while his own basis for comparison, which adds names from contemporary literature and other sources, makes the combo far less unusual.

— Asbury Theological Seminary professor Ben Witherington, a early Christianity expert who was deeply involved with the James Ossuary, says there are physical reasons to believe it couldn't have originated in the Talpiot plot.

Darrell Bock, a professor at the conservative Protestant Dallas Seminary, whom the Discovery Channel had vet the film two weeks ago, adds another objection: why would Jesus's family or followers bury his bones in a family plot and "then turn around and preach that he had been physically raised from the dead?" If that objection smacks secular readers as relying too heavily on scripture, then Bock's larger point is still trenchant: "I told them that there were too many assumptions being claimed as discoveries, and that they were trying to connect dots that didn't belong together."

Your move, Mr. Titanic.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/26/lkl.01.html

KING: Joining us now from New York is Dr. James D. Tabor, chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. His books include "The Jesus Dynasty," "The Hidden History of Jesus: His Royal Family and the Birth of Christianity."

Dr. Tabor, what do you make of all of this?

JAMES TABOR, CHAIRMAN, DEPT. OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES, UNIV. NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE: Well, I have been actually been working on it for about three or four years. And I do think that it is very worthy of consideration that we look at the cluster of names, the form of the names. And what I have tried to ask -- I'm not an archaeologist. I'm not a statistician. But from what I know of the historical records, both in the New Testament and other early Christian records, do these names fit what we know of the family of Jesus?

And I think the main thing that comes out, besides that Mariamene that I think has been mentioned, is the name of Jesus' lost brother. We have got -- Jesus had four brothers, James, Joseph, Jude and Simon. And when Jesus dies in the year 30, James takes over. This is well known to historians.

But after James dies in 62, instead of Joseph taking over, the next brother, Simon. So we have sort of lost Joseph. And there is this Jose in the tomb, which is the nickname for Jesus, brother of James, that's used in the Gospel of Mark three times.

So I think -- I am trying to put the historical records of the New Testament in with the archaeological data and the stats. And I think it's a good fit. It certainly is worth considering and talking about in a non-sensational way.

KING: This documentary will air on March 4th, Sunday. Dr. Mohler, Dr. Tabor is certainly a renowned theologian and student of all of this, been studying it all of his life, why not be open to at least think about it, talk about it, look at it? Don't you want to inquire or just not accept anything that is introduced?

MOHLER: Well, you have to accept the first part of any question. What kind of evidence could possibly be adduced that would make any sense in this? And the DNA evidence, even the statistical evidence given the preponderance of the names that are found in the ancient Near East, especially in the area we now call Israel, I mean, this kind of thing would be laughed out of court.

And frankly, I'm a bit surprised by Dr. Tabor's, at least, qualified endorsement of this, given the fact that this appears to me to be at least very inconsistent what he's arguing in his own book about Jesus not being the son of Joseph, which, by the way, we Christians don't hold either. But he's never known as the son of Joseph in terms of early Christian witness, he is never mentioned that way.

TABOR: No, he is. He's actually known as the son of Joseph in the New Testament, that certainly was his legal title.

MOHLER: It is not a name by which he was known in early Christian references at all. And you, if I'm not mistaken, Dr. Tabor...

TABOR: Well, he is called Jesus, son of Joseph, five times in the New Testament. So I don't know...

MOHLER: You argue that he's not the son of Joseph in your book, you also argue that if there is a tomb, it was likely to be in Galilee. So, I mean, you talk about...

TABOR: Well, that would be another show. But let's stay with this...

MOHLER: Well, we are talking about moving all of the pieces here to make for sensational television. And frankly, that's why I think most Christians are going to take this without any seriousness at all.

 

[aquinas]

Just more for those interested:

http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/02/26/the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/

and from John Piper:

http://www.desiringgod.org/Resource..._Why_I_Believe_That_Jesus_Rose_from_the_Dead/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eight Reasons Why I Believe That Jesus Rose from the Dead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By John Piper February 28, 2007


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Jesus himself testified to his coming resurrection from the dead.
Jesus spoke openly about what would happen to him: crucifixion and then resurrection from the dead. “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31; see also Matthew 17:22; Luke 9:22). Those who consider the resurrection of Christ unbelievable will probably say that Jesus was deluded or (more likely) that the early church put these statements in his mouth to make him teach the falsehood that they themselves conceived. But those who read the Gospels and come to the considered conviction that the one who speaks so compellingly through these witnesses is not the figment of foolish imagination will be unsatisfied with this effort to explain away Jesus’ own testimony to his resurrection from the dead.

This is especially true in view of the fact that the words which predict the resurrection are not only the simple straightforward words quoted above, but also the very oblique and indirect words which are far less likely to be the simple invention of deluded disciples. For example, two separate witnesses testify in two very different ways to Jesus’ statement during his lifetime that if his enemies destroyed the temple (of his body), he would build it again in three days (John 2:19; Mark 14:58; cf. Matthew 26:61). He also spoke illusively of the “sign of Jonah”—three days in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:39; 16:4). And he hinted at it again in Matthew 21:42—“The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.” On top of his own witness to the coming resurrection, his accusers said that this was part of Jesus’ claim: “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise’” (Matthew 27:63).

Our first evidence of the resurrection, therefore, is that Jesus himself spoke of it. The breadth and nature of the sayings make it unlikely that a deluded church made these up. And the character of Jesus himself, revealed in these witnesses, has not been judged by most people to be a lunatic or a deceiver.

2. The tomb was empty on Easter.
The earliest documents claim this: “When they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus” (Luke 24:3). And the enemies of Jesus confirmed it by claiming that the disciples had stolen the body (Matthew 28:13). The dead body of Jesus could not be found. There are four possible ways to account for this.

2.1 His foes stole the body. If they did (and they never claimed to have done so), they surely would have produced the body to stop the successful spread of the Christian faith in the very city where the crucifixion occurred. But they could not produce it.

2.2 His friends stole the body. This was an early rumor (Matthew 28:11-15). Is it probable? Could they have overcome the guards at the tomb? More important, would they have begun to preach with such authority that Jesus was raised, knowing that he was not? Would they have risked their lives and accepted beatings for something they knew was a fraud?

2.3 Jesus was not dead, but only unconscious when they laid him in the tomb. He awoke, removed the stone, overcame the soldiers, and vanished from history after a few meetings with his disciples in which he convinced them he was risen from the dead. Even the foes of Jesus did not try this line. He was obviously dead. The Romans saw to that. The stone could not be moved by one man from within who had just been stabbed in the side by a spear and spent six hours nailed to a cross.

2.4 God raised Jesus from the dead. This is what he said would happen. It is what the disciples said did happen. But as long as there is a remote possibility of explaining the resurrection naturalistically, modern people say we should not jump to a supernatural explanation. Is this reasonable? I don’t think so. Of course, we don’t want to be gullible. But neither do we want to reject the truth just because it’s strange. We need to be aware that our commitments at this point are much affected by our preferences—either for the state of affairs that would arise from the truth of the resurrection, or for the state of affairs that would arise from the falsehood of the resurrection. If the message of Jesus has opened you to the reality of God and the need of forgiveness, for example, then anti-supernatural dogma might lose its power over your mind. Could it be that this openness is not prejudice for the resurrection, but freedom from prejudice against it?

3. The disciples were almost immediately transformed from men who were hopeless and fearful after the crucifixion (Luke 24:21, John 20:19) into men who were confident and bold witnesses of the resurrection (Acts 2:24, 3:15, 4:2).
Their explanation of this change was that they had seen the risen Christ and had been authorized to be his witnesses (Acts 2:32). The most popular competing explanation is that their confidence was owing to hallucinations. There are numerous problems with such a notion. The disciples were not gullible, but level-headed skeptics both before and after the resurrection. (Mark 9:32, Luke 24:11, John 20:8-9, 25). Moreover, is the deep and noble teaching of those who witnessed the risen Christ the stuff of which hallucinations are made? What about Paul’s great letter to the Romans? I personally find it hard to think of this giant intellect and deeply transparent soul as deluded or deceptive, and he claimed to have seen the risen Christ.

4. Paul claimed that, not only had he seen the risen Christ, but that 500 others had seen him also, and many were still alive when he made this public claim.
“Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:6). What makes this so relevant is that this was written to Greeks who were skeptical of such claims when many of these witnesses were still alive. So it was a risky claim if it could be disproved by a little firsthand research.

5. The sheer existence of a thriving, empire-conquering early Christian church supports the truth of the resurrection claim.
The church spread on the power of the testimony that Jesus was raised from the dead and that God had thus made him both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). The Lordship of Christ over all nations is based on his victory over death. This is the message that spread all over the world. Its power to cross cultures and create one new people of God was a strong testimony of its truth.

6. The Apostle Paul’s conversion supports the truth of the resurrection.
He argues to a partially unsympathetic audience in Galatians 1:11-17 that his gospel comes from the risen Jesus Christ, not from men. His argument is that before his Damascus Road experience when he saw the risen Jesus, he was violently opposed to the Christian faith (Acts 9:1). But now, to everyone’s astonishment, he is risking his life for the gospel (Acts 9:24-25). His explanation: The risen Jesus appeared to him and authorized him to spearhead the Gentile mission (Acts 26:15-18). Can we credit such a testimony? This leads to the next argument.

7. The New Testament witnesses do not bear the stamp of dupes or deceivers.
How do you credit a witness? How do you decide whether to believe a person’s testimony? The decision to give credence to a person’s testimony is not the same as completing a mathematical equation. The certainty is of a different kind, yet can be just as firm (I trust my wife’s testimony that she is faithful). When a witness is dead, we can base our judgment of him only on the content of his writings and the testimonies of others about him. How do Peter and John and Matthew and Paul stack up?

In my judgment (and at this point we can live authentically only by our own judgment—Luke 12:57), these men’s writings do not read like the works of gullible, easily deceived or deceiving men. Their insights into human nature are profound. Their personal commitment is sober and carefully stated. Their teachings are coherent and do not look like the invention of unstable men. The moral and spiritual standard is high. And the lives of these men are totally devoted to the truth and to the honor of God.

8. There is a self-authenticating glory in the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection as narrated by the biblical witnesses.
The New Testament teaches that God sent the Holy Spirit to glorify Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus said, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.... He will glorify me” (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit does not do this by telling us that Jesus rose from the dead. He does it by opening our eyes to see the self-authenticating glory of Christ in the narrative of his life and death and resurrection. He enables us to see Jesus as he really was, so that he is irresistibly true and beautiful. The apostle stated the problem of our blindness and the solution like this: “The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.... For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:4, 6).

A saving knowledge of Christ crucified and risen is not the mere result of right reasoning about historical facts. It is the result of spiritual illumination to see those facts for what they really are: a revelation of the truth and glory of God in the face of Christ—who is the same yesterday today and forever.

Pastor John [\quote]

 

[aquinas]

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/43432.php

The film was produced by James Cameron, who directed "Titanic" and other films. Its director, Simcha Jacobovici, caused a similar stir five years ago with a documentary about another ossuary that he purported to be that of James, Jesus' brother. Israeli officials have since declared that ossuary a fake, though Jacobovici still maintains it's authentic. The supposed Jesus tomb is a typical Jewish burial site, Dever said.
"The only thing unusual about this tomb is the decoration in it, on the bedrock itself," he said.
"The point is that these names are common enough that . . . you can't connect them to the New Testament names," Dever said. "The only thing interesting, even remotely, is the grouping of names. That is a little unusual, but given we have so few names, it is not statistically significant."
The site was nothing special to archaeologists in 1980, Dever said. "I didn't even go to the tomb when it was being dug because these finds are made all the time in Jerusalem."
Dever said he also found the claim that the producers had visited the tomb disturbing.
"It's now all sealed over. You can't go into it," Dever said. "Frankly, some of the experts, so-called, being quoted (in the documentary) are just charlatans," he said. "A number of real experts have looked at it, in Israel and here. I know them all, and we agree there isn't much of a story here if you stick to the facts." The show's producers and a Discovery Channel spokesperson could not be reached for comment.

 

[The_Horned_King]

Im not saying to believe him at all.....as a mater a fact I think it's BS too...but at least give me some links that
1) aren't to religious sites((the cnn stuff is a nice start))
2) Aren't littered full for Biblical referances.Like your second post....I can just as easily find links that that support otherwise.
I guess my problem is with links you are showing to sites such as desiringgod.com or sfpulpit???....Like they are going to say It's true!?

Atleast give me sites like cnn and time! Not religious sites.

 

[cardaway]

Wow, that's a lot of effort, by a lot of people, about something that is supposed to be competely fictional and not worth any attention.

 

[The_Horned_King]

Simcha Jacobovici, caused a similar stir five years ago with a documentary about another ossuary that he purported to be that of James, Jesus' brother. Israeli officials have since declared that ossuary a fake, though Jacobovici still maintains it's authentic

I posted it in the thread a long time back same basic thing way back in the thread.

 

[cardaway]

I guess my problem is with links you are showing to sites such as desiringgod.com or sfpulpit???....Like they are going to say It's true!?

Why ignore the only true and correct biblical outlook on science.

 

[aquinas]

Im not saying to believe him at all.....as a mater a fact I think it's BS too...but at least give me some links that
1) aren't to religious sites((the cnn stuff is a nice start))
2) Aren't littered full for Biblical referances.Like your second post....I can just as easily find links that that support otherwise.
I guess my problem is with links you are showing to sites such as desiringgod.com or sfpulpit???....Like they are going to say It's true!?

Atleast give me sites like cnn and time! Not religious sites.

I gave you quotes from Time, Newsweek, and an article in the Tuscon paper.

This documentary is being widely denounced from every side. They had a simliar documentary in England about 10 years ago on the same subject and it was widely denounced then as well.

 

[The_Horned_King]

Rofl!!!!

 

[aquinas]

Why ignore the only true and correct biblical outlook on science.

OK, show me some irrefutable scientific claims coming from this documentary and their so called experts that back up their claim beyond any doubt that they found the tomb of Jesus.

 

[RoyalCanadian]

Just more for those interested:

2.3 Jesus was not dead, but only unconscious when they laid him in the tomb. He awoke, removed the stone, overcame the soldiers, and vanished from history after a few meetings with his disciples in which he convinced them he was risen from the dead. Even the foes of Jesus did not try this line. He was obviously dead. The Romans saw to that. The stone could not be moved by one man from within who had just been stabbed in the side by a spear and spent six hours nailed to a cross.

The theologian/author Paul Maier goes on record to basically say that if the Romans wanted you dead, you were as good as dead. If the Romans knew how to do one thing, that was kill people. If the scriptures tell us that the Romans wanted Jesus dead, then I have every faith that Rome made sure Jesus died a rather nasty death.

Coincidentally, Paul Maier wrote a novel about this very subject. Entitled A Skeleton in God's Closet, it deals with the ramifications to the faith of Christians worldwide if the bones of Jesus were indeed to be found. A follow-up book entitled More than a Skeleton deals with the ramifications of the return of Jesus. Both novels are excellent reads, and the 2nd book certainly lets the world know what this particular Lutheran thinks about pre-millenial dispensational theology.

 

[Fitswimmer]

You would have to disregard Mark 14:32-42 to come to that conclusion. Jesus says:

"Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

and disregard Mark 15:34, where Jesus cries out to God, "why have you forsaken me"

If anything, those verses support the idea that Jesus struggled with God's will for Him just as we do. I find that comforting, because it means He understands me when I struggle. Jesus CHOSE to do God's will. The Agony in the Garden wouldn't have occurred at all if He were some robot. There would have been no temptation in the desert either.

 

[salmoneous]

When taken in context with other passages such as John 14, Matthew 25, & other Biblical passages, it appears that may be exactly what He's saying.

I just think a fundamental message is something you come out and say - not something you have to piece together looking at verses all over the place and drawing some conclusions after which is appears that it may be what he's saying.

I honestly don't think Christianity has a single fundamental message. I don't think God wants us all to find the same message. If he did, he would have written a *much* more straightforward book.

Jesus did say somethings very clearly. For instance:

When Jesus was asked, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" he replied, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind' - this is the great and foremost commandment, and there is a second like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'. The whole Law and Prophets hang on these two commands."

 

[cardaway]

When Jesus was asked, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" he replied, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind' - this is the great and foremost commandment, and there is a second like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'. The whole Law and Prophets hang on these two commands."

Exactly. People piece things together when they want to find a foundation for their own agendas when the real message is right there waiting.

 

[ead79]

If anything, those verses support the idea that Jesus struggled with God's will for Him just as we do. I find that comforting, because it means He understands me when I struggle. Jesus CHOSE to do God's will. The Agony in the Garden wouldn't have occurred at all if He were some robot. There would have been no temptation in the desert either.

I totally agree with you and find great comfort in knowing that Jesus had the same temptations we do, though He never gave in to them. One of the most profound parts of the crucifixion to me is when Jesus asks God to forgive those crucifying Him. Not only did Jesus forgive them afterwards, He forgave them while He was still in the midst of excruciating pain. It is amazing to me, and beyond my comprehension that Jesus chose of His own free will to die for me, even knowing what a painful death it would be and knowing He had the power to prevent all that pain.

 

[Amity 3]

James Cameron...that pinnacle of Hollywood integrity.

But he is getting the 15 minutes of fame back, after it all tanked once the Titanic thing was over.

And doing it during Lent...nice touch.

But let's let the media do their thing, let's let all the folks who don't believe say "see I told you so".

Let's not tell them that "resurrected" doesn't necessarily mean that His body in human form was brought up to Heaven, because that's probably too abstract of a concept for them to understand.

Let's not tell them that if Jesus was God made flesh, in human form, that it wouldn't necessarily surprise anyone if He were married...as a matter of fact, it wouldn't faze most people one bit, at least not most people I know who are Catholic/Christian...but it also wouldn't change the sacrifice He made.

Meanwhile, I'll still go to church on Sunday. And James Cameron will live his "Hollywood" lifestyle.

And in the end...I'll be better off.

that sound you hear are jaws dropping as people read this.

 

[magicmato]

that sound you hear are jaws dropping as people read this.

lol... bet the Priests would be surprised and fazed by the whole "Jesus was married" bit, lol

 

[The_Horned_King]

The theologian/author Paul Maier goes on record to basically say that if the Romans wanted you dead, you were as good as dead. If the Romans knew how to do one thing, that was kill people. If the scriptures tell us that the Romans wanted Jesus dead, then I have every faith that Rome made sure Jesus died a rather nasty death.

Coincidentally, Paul Maier wrote a novel about this very subject. Entitled A Skeleton in God's Closet, it deals with the ramifications to the faith of Christians worldwide if the bones of Jesus were indeed to be found. A follow-up book entitled More than a Skeleton deals with the ramifications of the return of Jesus. Both novels are excellent reads, and the 2nd book certainly lets the world know what this particular Lutheran thinks about pre-millenial dispensational theology.

Books sound interesting. I'll have to check them out.

 

[va32h]

When Jesus was asked, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" he replied, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind' - this is the great and foremost commandment, and there is a second like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'. The whole Law and Prophets hang on these two commands."

What is that, if not a foundation?

My personal belief is that the book of Mark is the only true gospel. In the original ending, Jesus concluded that people were not ready for his message, and the women who saw him resurrected were too scared to speak of it to anyone.

And that's what I think actually happened.

We don't want it to be as simple as loving God and loving our neighbor. First, because loving our neighbor isn't all that simple when you think about it - because if you love your neighbor as yourself, you would be compelled to fight against poverty, injustice, hunger, crime, and all our other worldy tribulations.

Second - because people have some sort of need to separate themselves, to create exclusivity, to create ritual, to create the US and the unspecified "THEM" on whom all our hurts, big and small, can be blamed. "THOSE people" sometimes use the alias of "illegal immigrant" or "welfare cheat" or "non-believers". But they all boil down to the Other, the Not Like Me, the THEM.

Jesus wanted us to love our neighbor as ourselves, but I think he meant that everyone was our neighbor, not just the people we choose.