Amanda Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 I am curious if this supposed tomb of Jesus were to have the perponderance of weight supporting that there really may have been a real sage named Jesus, what implications would that really have for members here? If he were recognized as a regular man, who perhaps had a ministry, would that now mean he went to and fro performing magic? Would that somehow make a literal hell in a dimension out there real? Flames of fire in outer darkness real? Or would the religous right just have to accept that he was just a man, who perhaps had an amazing ministry, yet could no more determine anyone going to a literal eternal life or literal eternal pits of fire than you or I? I see this as a wake up call for the religous right, to perhaps determine how special they are over the rest of the world. Nada! Jesus is human, and there is nothing wrong with that, IMO. Yet, I was curious as to how recovering fundamentalist were reacting to this news? Does it trigger the years of compounding lies to seem true? Can a recovering fundamentalist accept the possible validity of this man existing while still able to sort out the crazy runaway associations added upon this person as still unbelieveable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 You raise an interesting question. For myself, I'd be totally fascinated by a genuine historical discovery like this (if it in fact is more than just hype to promote a loose-ended documentary). But the good question is what would happen to the faith of Christian fundamentalists? What is their faith based on anyway??? I don't think it's because they find Jesus' words all that stellar. I'd bet even money they would either deny the earth revolves around the sun to protect their beliefs, or they'd jump ship for a new cult to sink their identity into (god knows that's their real motive for joining up and hearing the call of the Lord). I love the question to ask the fundi: "Do Jesus' words stand on their own as divine, or do you need some miracle to make it click for you? If they really discovered his bones and he was no miracle man, are his words worthless to you? If so, then why do you call yourself a Christian?" Personally, the whole worship of the man seems so off anyway. Who cares if he's alive or dead, a god or a man? Do the words mean anything to you personally? If so, then follow them. If not, then don't. What's this whole god worship stuff about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 <snip> Personally, the whole worship of the man seems so off anyway. Who cares if he's alive or dead, a god or a man? Do the words mean anything to you personally? If so, then follow them. If not, then don't. What's this whole god worship stuff about? Antlerman, I agree with you entirely. However, when people on this site suggested that Jesus probably did not exist... it did rock my world a bit. However, I came to the same recognition as what you've stated, the message should speak for itself. I don't consider you a 'recovering fundamentalist'. That is clearly in your past, and I know that YOU are in a place where this has no effect on you, other than some sort of casual interest. However, have you ever been driving down the road and heard an old song, and in your thoughts it immediately took you back to a place and time? Well, that song was a trigger to those buried memories. I'm just curious as to the members that are still dealing with family members and friends constantly trying to 'win' them back to the Lord, if the... "see, Jesus is real!" is stimulating some kind of trigger to those compounded suggestions they believed for so many years? Does this find cause them to hesitate in their escaping from fundamentalism? Brainwashing can do some funny things, and are often built on triggers that reinforce their hold on their members. Mostly I just see fundy ministers on TV getting all huffy about it. These fundies are beside themselves! This can't be! Jesus went into another dimension into thin air, and that tomb can't be! However, it seems this place has been a bit quiet too, and a lot of responses I've seen are still suggesting denial of this as much as the fundies are. I'm just curious if there are members still recovering from fundamentalism here, that this tomb may cause a trigger to somewhat validate past suggestions compounded hundreds of times of believing or going to hell, or what does it mean to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 It is funny though, because if this is really the real Jesus and he's dead, then the Christians got the Bible wrong (at least the understanding of it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 It is funny though, because if this is really the real Jesus and he's dead, then the Christians got the Bible wrong (at least the understanding of it). HanSolo, of course, that is what is so funny to watch. It's like what I've heard Ghandi to have said, in that he liked Christ, but he didn't like our Christians. I think St. Nicholas is more endearing than Santa Claus anyway. HanSolo, I know this has had no effect on you too, even though you were a dedicated fundamentalist Christian at one time. Do you think this may effect recovering fundamentalists negatively, or do you think this tomb discovery may suggest Jesus is just a mere human, and that is okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknowing1 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Yeah I think it could change things for some people. Visit the Discovery.com website and read some of the comments in the forums. Some religious people are up in arms about this and while I believe some of the fanatics would never believe it if it is true there are some more rational folks who would adjust their thinking regarding Christianity. In a way I feel sorry for some of them. They have lived their whole life believing one thing and now their whole mental well being is being threatened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Label me a prophet. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=149035 Dated: Mar 2 2006, 06:56 AM Hello everyone, A few weeks ago we got into a pretty interesting conversation in my meditation group. We entertained the question: What would happen to Christianity as a religion, and what would happen to our own personal faith, if some archealogist somewhere found an ossuary with the inscription - "Jesus of Nazerth - King of the Jews" - inscribed on it (filled with bones). I mean think about it, Christianity would have proof Jesus existed, but it's also proof that the resurrection did not involve the physical body of Jesus. My questions to the Christians who frequent this board are: What would happen to your personal faith? Is your faith based on something other than the literal interpretation of the Bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I don't see how such a discovery would change anything. Forget for a moment the impossibility of confirming that the bones are really those of Jesus. Assuming for a moment that the bones are his. It would still in no way prove the extraordinary claims made about this man. The only implications of such a discovery are what Hans and OM mention; that Jesus was not resurected. I have no doubt that such a discovery would not be accepted by even one fundy. They already have well-honed rationalization skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubilant Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 If Jesus's bones were found...the Muslims would be right. Afterall, they said that Jesus was just a great prophet. Still, I don't see how this *discovery* proves anything. For the most part, I bet that most fundies are thinking this to be a hoax by the devil. As for a recovering fundy though, I believe it would only help them get over their fears because it would *prove* that Jesus was just a man and that pretty much makes null, the literal interpretation of the gospels in which they believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I am curious if this supposed tomb of Jesus were to have the perponderance of weight supporting that there really may have been a real sage named Jesus, what implications would that really have for members here? Wouldn't mean anything different for me other than to confirm my unbelief. If he was a real man, than he wasn't a god and there is no reason to fear hell. There is no reason to obsess about the afterlife. There is no reason to worry about enjoying your life, as so many Christians do and I did when I was Christian. It does make me slightly pissed that it's proof that my belief was all for nothing, but I went through that realization when I deconverted anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 What is their faith based on anyway??? I don't think it's because they find Jesus' words all that stellar. I'd bet even money they would either deny the earth revolves around the sun to protect their beliefs, or they'd jump ship for a new cult to sink their identity into (god knows that's their real motive for joining up and hearing the call of the Lord). Yeah, I bet they'd convert to Islam or Buddhism or something. Possibly Wicca, although I can't see an ultraconservative fundy converting to Paganism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 If Jesus's bones were found...the Muslims would be right. Afterall, they said that Jesus was just a great prophet. Still, I don't see how this *discovery* proves anything. For the most part, I bet that most fundies are thinking this to be a hoax by the devil. As for a recovering fundy though, I believe it would only help them get over their fears because it would *prove* that Jesus was just a man and that pretty much makes null, the literal interpretation of the gospels in which they believe. Well they'd be right about the prophet part but it doesn't prove anything else. Most fundies are probably assuming it's a hoax or that they're being tested, particularly close to Easter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I don't even know why they would be right about Jesus being a prophet. Jesus of the gospels didn't say anything particularly new. Even if he was a real man, how do we know that the words weren't put into his mouth and actions attributed to him by writers and by legend? In any case, I think this discovery is utter bunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 HanSolo, I know this has had no effect on you too, even though you were a dedicated fundamentalist Christian at one time. Do you think this may effect recovering fundamentalists negatively, or do you think this tomb discovery may suggest Jesus is just a mere human, and that is okay? No fundamentalist will ever, and can never, accept that Jesus existed and died, but not risen in body. If Jesus bones can be found in a box, it doesn't matter even if god places an angel next to it to tell everyone that these are the bones of their savior, they can not accept non-literal understanding of the Bible. They will claim fraud, fake, trickery etc. And yet believe in a story in a book by some authors they never met. Go figure. When belief becomes stronger than reality, that's when you have problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 If Jesus's bones were found...the Muslims would be right. Afterall, they said that Jesus was just a great prophet. That's a very scary thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Here's an Easter thought of the day. What if this is the resurrection and the second coming in one single event? His bones are being raised from the tomb by archeologists, and now He's back amongst us again. He has returned!!! Hallelujah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Label me a prophet. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=149035 Dated: Mar 2 2006, 06:56 AM Hello everyone, A few weeks ago we got into a pretty interesting conversation in my meditation group. We entertained the question: What would happen to Christianity as a religion, and what would happen to our own personal faith, if some archealogist somewhere found an ossuary with the inscription - "Jesus of Nazerth - King of the Jews" - inscribed on it (filled with bones). I mean think about it, Christianity would have proof Jesus existed, but it's also proof that the resurrection did not involve the physical body of Jesus. My questions to the Christians who frequent this board are: What would happen to your personal faith? Is your faith based on something other than the literal interpretation of the Bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyson Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Here's an Easter thought of the day. What if this is the resurrection and the second coming in one single event? His bones are being raised from the tomb by archeologists, and now He's back amongst us again. He has returned!!! Hallelujah! My stance has been very simple. Jesus DID exist, however, NOT in the context the the Gospels present. Nothing more than writings full of embellishments and exaggerations by the writers to sell their messiah candidate. Christianity just happened to have the fortunate happening of being adopted by the world's greatest empire which later made its way around the globe on the wings of its offsprings France, Spain, England, Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands. I'm not willing to give first century folks the uncanny ability to just pull an imaginary figure out of thin air and create such a complex story around him. I am more inclined to believed that some smelly itinerant preacher by the name of Jesus walked about the place teaching a radical and simple message, probably knowledgeable in some black arts and taking FULL advantage of the end times fears of those days became a glorified deity as time went on past his death. There are internal hints in the New Testament writings that helps to lead to my conclusion. To these people the world was coming to an end. The Jews were looking for their political messiah. Others claimed he was already amongst them hence the multitudes of "messiahs" running about the place in those days. Here comes one by the name of Jesus with his crowd. His followers expect him to vanquish Rome and restore Israel to prominence (remember how they asked him AFTER the alleged resurrection if it was time for him to restore Israel). Instead of restoring Israel, he is strung up and killed. They couldn't have this. How would this look to the critics? Well the way to fix that is to come up with this notion he rose from the dead and went away for a little while to build some mansions and give people a little more time to recognize him for who he truly was and in a short period of time, he would come back to deal with Rome and all unbelievers. Well that worked out just fine, didn't it? Look at I Peter. The writer boldly proclaims that he was living in the last time. In II Peter we find the writer exercising damage control and becomes a spin doctor. It is apparent the critics were voicing ridicule. "Where's this Jesus you guys said was coming back? A generation has passed, the very one you claimed he said would NOT pass away before he comes back and no sight of him yet!" Well, like many modern Christians, the writer came up with an ingenious explanation. "Hey, God is not willing that any should perish so he is holding Jesus back to give you a chance to repent. After all, one day is a thousand years to God and a thousand years as one day." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 In a way I feel sorry for some of them. They have lived their whole life believing one thing and now their whole mental well being is being threatened. Unknowing1... I applaud your empathy! However, I think it will bring people who think they are special and all knowing over the rest of the world to a much more interactive, humble place of accepting others, and to start considering living their life for here and now instead of the life after they die. Maybe people will stop praying for their answers to fall from the sky onto their laps? You're right, it is hard, and a lot of us are lucky we have already worked through a lot of issues here, before this explosion. Open Minded, I can tell you're a Christian crushed at this tomb news. I don't see how such a discovery would change anything. Still, I don't see how this *discovery* proves anything. Wouldn't mean anything different for me other than to confirm my unbelief. If he was a real man, than he wasn't a god and there is no reason to fear hell. There is no reason to obsess about the afterlife. There is no reason to worry about enjoying your life, as so many Christians do and I did when I was Christian. It does make me slightly pissed that it's proof that my belief was all for nothing, but I went through that realization when I deconverted anyway. I think a literal hell could be powerful to this cult's brainwashing of securing their fold. Maybe this tomb can challenge that? If this does get the statistical edge of being the real thing, hopefully it has the same effect on all recovering fundamentalists as on here. Although, I would consider everyone here NOT in the recovering phase anymore. Thanks for sharing your strengths. Amethyst, do you really think your fundy beliefs were ALL for nothing? I see so many here who were fundies, now being such great people at heart. I can't help but think that it contributed something positive along the way. Sure, its best to escape the helpless mentality it fosters, yet didn't it have some teachings that benefited you as well? I don't even know why they would be right about Jesus being a prophet. Jesus of the gospels didn't say anything particularly new. Even if he was a real man, how do we know that the words weren't put into his mouth and actions attributed to him by writers and by legend? In any case, I think this discovery is utter bunk. Vigile del Fuoco1, I have great respect for you. I'm curious to know, would it bother you if it were found that "Jesus" was a strong proponent of equality of all, acceptance of all, compassion with accountability and responsibility for all, and just wanted everyone to get along happily? If Jesus was found to be just a good guy, is it fair to resent him because his memory was twisted, distorted, and defamed along the way? No fundamentalist will ever, and can never, accept that Jesus existed and died, but not risen in body. It seems you did better than that! :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 Here's an Easter thought of the day. What if this is the resurrection and the second coming in one single event? His bones are being raised from the tomb by archeologists, and now He's back amongst us again. He has returned!!! Hallelujah! Antlerman, HanSolo commented something even better than that, on another thread... What if they cloned Jesus? Could that be his return? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 No fundamentalist will ever, and can never, accept that Jesus existed and died, but not risen in body. If Jesus bones can be found in a box, it doesn't matter even if god places an angel next to it to tell everyone that these are the bones of their savior, they can not accept non-literal understanding of the Bible. I can't say I'd blame them. The resurrection beliefs back 2000 years ago were of physical resurrection as well. It wasn't until later on, in the latter 1st century or 2nd century, that a more "spiritual" resurrection (what people might think of as a Gnostic idea of resurrection) came to be...at least to my knowledge. So if this happened in the early 1st century, as people say it does, then all evidence points to a physical bodily resurrection. The use of the bone box proves this. They used to lay the person alone for a length of time, about a year as I recall. Then they'd move them to a common area where all the bones were mixed with everyone else's who was buried there. The worry was that "god" wouldn't get people put back together quite right so to make it easier they came up with the boxes. Now instead of the common area each person would get moved into their own box after being apart for the initial period. If he didn't believe in a bodily resurrection then none of these steps would have been taken since they wouldn't have mattered. Since they obviously were taken it shows these people were concerned about their physical bodies (since someone has to come into the tomb at specific periods and move the bodies and do all this work...it didn't just happen) and the end times resurrection. It utterly disagrees with any "gnostic" ideas anyone might project upon these people as they would find the physical body unworthy of all this effort. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 No fundamentalist will ever, and can never, accept that Jesus existed and died, but not risen in body. If Jesus bones can be found in a box, it doesn't matter even if god places an angel next to it to tell everyone that these are the bones of their savior, they can not accept non-literal understanding of the Bible. I can't say I'd blame them. The resurrection beliefs back 2000 years ago were of physical resurrection as well. It wasn't until later on, in the latter 1st century or 2nd century, that a more "spiritual" resurrection (what people might think of as a Gnostic idea of resurrection) came to be...at least to my knowledge. So if this happened in the early 1st century, as people say it does, then all evidence points to a physical bodily resurrection. The use of the bone box proves this. They used to lay the person alone for a length of time, about a year as I recall. Then they'd move them to a common area where all the bones were mixed with everyone else's who was buried there. The worry was that "god" wouldn't get people put back together quite right so to make it easier they came up with the boxes. Now instead of the common area each person would get moved into their own box after being apart for the initial period. If he didn't believe in a bodily resurrection then none of these steps would have been taken since they wouldn't have mattered. Since they obviously were taken it shows these people were concerned about their physical bodies (since someone has to come into the tomb at specific periods and move the bodies and do all this work...it didn't just happen) and the end times resurrection. It utterly disagrees with any "gnostic" ideas anyone might project upon these people as they would find the physical body unworthy of all this effort. mwc Are you saying that they thought that Jesus wouldn't be resurrected until the end times also? I may not be getting your connection. I have no doubt that many people believed in a physical resurrection. I just believe that this was based on a misunderstanding of what Jesus was teaching. Most of the bible is based on this same misunderstanding. The Council chose this one belief to use when they sat down at the table. So when people say, "What would Jesus do?" they really need to look at that and not at what the Council said he did. They need to use their own abilities to see beyond what others perceived. Just because this group of people understood a physical resurrection doesn't mean that it was the correct understanding. The way Jesus spoke and the things he taught are found in religions older than Christianity. You are always going to have people that can't look beyond the words to find the spiritual meaning. But, one can look into the Vedas and the teachings of Buddhism and notice a pattern of thoughts using metaphors in order to convey it. They are saying the same things in a lot of places. I'm not saying people have to believe the spiritual messages, I'm just saying that these messages are ancient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Are you saying that they thought that Jesus wouldn't be resurrected until the end times also? I may not be getting your connection. I have no doubt that many people believed in a physical resurrection. I just believe that this was based on a misunderstanding. Most of the bible is based on this same misunderstanding. The Council chose this one belief to use when they sat down at the table. Yes, this is basically what I am saying. But not "they thought" but if this is really his tomb then it's what "he thought." The use of the bone box was related to the physical resurrection of the body. It was to keep each persons bones separated for the day they would be brought back to life and put back together again. The common bone "pit" made people uneasy just in case a mistake was made (what if you got the wrong leg?). If Jesus were to have brought in a revolutionary teaching that said "No. There will be a spiritual resurrection and not a bodily one." Then he would not have followed the practice of preparing himself, his family members and possibly his own followers for a bodily resurrection. This tomb, if this is the real deal, shows people prepared for a bodily resurrection. Family members and followers would have had to come into the tomb and cared for the bodies and bones for some time after the people inside were dead. Since the body, to those with "gnostic" beliefs, were useless after death this becomes a contradiction (unless Jesus was "hedging" his bet...in which case it proves he didn't really believe his own doctrine). So when people say, "What would Jesus do?" they really need to look at that and not at what the Council said he did. They need to use their own abilities to see beyond what others perceived. Just because this group of people understood a physical resurrection doesn't mean that it was the correct understanding. I'm not using the information of any councils or anything else. I'm simply going on what the burial procedures were in the 1st century Judea and why they were that way. The bones were kept in boxes to make the physical resurrection easier. If Jesus and company had their bones in boxes then they were expecting a physical resurrection. If they weren't they would have had a different type of burial and made no arrangements for their bodies to be handled in such a fashion. The way they are buried speaks volumes to their personal belief system...especially if we are to believe this is the burial site of the founder of a certain type of belief system and it's adherents. We wouldn't expect them to be accidentally buried the "wrong" way. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 mwc Ohhhhh....I knew I wasn't getting something! I need to do some studying... Can you point me in a direction to study that? When I google burial procedures of first century Judea, all I get is religious sites and talking about James' box. Do I need to go to some of the early historians? Was this type of burial something they did starting in the first century or does it go back even further? How did the gnostics bury their dead? Did the Jews believe in physical resurrection? That is why I asked how old is this tradition of ossuaries due to the belief in physical resurrection. This is interesting and I would like to know more. Sorry about all the questions, but you've peaked my interest! Thanks mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 mwc, Please bear with me while I try to work out the implications of this because it just doesn't make much sense in my mind as to why he would be burried in this manner. If they believed in physical resurrection at end times, then what was said about Jesus resurrecting immediately was incorrect. Would that mean that he thought that he would also resurrect at this time? What I'm trying to get at, I think, is that why would he himself be buried in such a manner other than the resurrection belief? Was it an earlier tradition? Were there laws that had to be followed concerning burials regardless of beliefs? In any case, if this proves real, then there are some wrong assumptions made about what he said somewhere. Why would he himself be buried this way if he thought he was to go to the father immediately? If he was just a regular guy, then I could understand him choosing to be buried in a traditional way. Why would he chose this manner of burial is my main question. Maybe you can help ease my confusion mwc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts