i have about dozen of these threads out there on the web in boilerplate with only you guys, the the Tabor fan club of "discovery", trying to defend these two filmmaker idiots but only from a place where you might impress them ... cheap
real cheap
This message has been edited. Last edited by: dolliee,
Three days after his death. The loved ones of Jesus were able to take his body away from armed guard and give him a proper Jewish burial. It wasn't the body of Christ that resurrected, but his word and spirit. A resurrection that continues still today, in conversations such as this all around the world. In my opinion, such a power is 10 fold better than beings seen by your friends 3 days later.
Also, this find can be proven more so still. The same DNA test done on "Jesus" and "Mary M" can be used to determine if the supposed brothers are of the same mother. The same can be done on the "son of Jesus", who should have the same mitochondrial DNA as "Mary M.". These test should have been done, wherein the documentary would be nearly indisputable.
jim, I am surprised you have not surfaced yet, or if you will at all. This is a hot topic, definitely up there with those I have posted. Dolliee has made some interesting points which essentially request you to display intellectual honesty. I also made the same demand in my posts to ou, if you deliver, well that's up to you and your intellectual integrity.
I witness the same old, tired, worn out, used and abused gnostic mantra that has been flogged to death for 2,000 years showing up on all these threads, as Ecclesiastes said 'nothing new under the sun'. Jesus said His Church will last til the end of times and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. For 2,000 years this relentless gnostic assault has not prevailed, the Church is still here.
I am witnessing flagrant gnostic violations of the 1st Commandment which has injunctions against gnostics playing God with folks'life, telling Jesus what to do, setting limits as to what Jesus is allowed to do, insulting His sacred persona as being married with kids denigrates His Godhead which is the central part of the 1st Commandment. Jesus is not a commodity to be bandied about by these gnostic debunkers. Jesus always has the last word. We all have to face Him for Judgement when we die, we are accountable for every thought, word act every second of our lives, gnostics have no immunity from this Judgement. Since you Jim made a translation of the bible, will you be intellectually honest and up front and inform is if it was done from gnostic spin on things or do we have to ferret out that kind of subterfuge?
Thank you to all of you for the interesting discussion. This is the best thing about the tomb discovery, the debate it's causing.
Dolliee, I know I'm not going to be able to make you understand this now, but I'll say it anyway, once more - what you think God wants is your opinion. No one else is obligated to believe it.
Please, can't we have this discussion without resorting to childish name-calling? People secure in their own beliefs have no need for such immaturity...or proselytizing.
I really fail to see where dolliee has made interesting points that would at all stimulate anyone intellectually. The arguments are so confused between history and faith that he/she almost accepts historical information when it is convenient, and discards it when it is not.
Much of the problem of the current situation is that no one is having an honest debate, and looking purely for the historical facts. Granted the filmakers have done the same, using biblical references some of the time, and not others.
There is quite a large gap in our understanding of whether the bible is truly an historical account or is mixed with coded language and parables. We have much to learn, and need to be more open to new ideas.
I have found it amusing to follow this debate as it highlights a central problem related to this and similar discussions: the complete apparent incompatibility, in practice, if not in theory, of two different epistemologies, faith and logic. dollilee and her ilk might as well be speaking Mandarin Chinese and everyone else a rare dialect of Bantu. In my opinion, this is the result of millenia of perverting Christianity away from compassion, love and forbearance towards anti-intellectual, sanctimonious intolerance. Then again, it seems to be a recent phenomenon. What happened to the likes of C.S. Lewis or Flannery O'Connor? I don't agree with either of the latter's opinions regarding spirituality, but at least they were capable of civil argument.
Ssedlmayr makes an apt observation. Much of this discussion is related to the area of epistemology. Therefore, I suggest that we begin to discuss the cohesiveness of the epistemological presuppositions that we are bringing to the table.
Ultimately, we interpret truth claims in light of what we believe. If we accept the Scriptures as authoritative, then we interpret scientific conclusions in light of the teachings of Scripture. If we begin with an anti-supernatural bias, then we will not accept the miracles that the Scriptures affirm (i.e. - resurrection). This fact seems to underscore the idea that all epistemologies are based on some kind of faith commitment. But again, I would suggest that in order to advance the conversation, that we begin to discuss our philosophical presuppositions and explain how our presuppositions are not based on arbitrariness or conjecture.
My own presuppositions relating to the area of epistemology are as follows: I believe that the Triune God of the Bible exists and that He has revealed Himself in the Bible. Human knowledge, therefore, is a subset of God's knowledge and is dependent upon God's knowledge.
With respect to an epistemology of logic (rationalism), I believe it is incoherent. As I mentioned above, all epistemologies are based on some kind of faith commitment. Logic simply does not allow one to arrive at conclusions unless certain things are already assumed. If certain truths are assumed, then (and only then) can one reason from those truths and arrive at true conclusions. But a question remains about how one comes to a knowledge of the truths from which he then reasons.
I just read this whole convo and it was very fascinating and informatie. Thank you all. Dollie you would of been able to hold better ground if you didn't pass your personal opinions as fact.
I don't know if I agree that all epistemologies ultimately rely on a "faith commitment", although I would agree that at some point all epistemologies face a moment at which they must admit the limit of their knowledge. Perhaps my understanding of faith is incorrect, but I think their is a qualitative difference between saying, on the one hand, that one ought to believe in something irrespective of physical observation, because it is metaphysically irrelevant; and on the other, saying that one ought to consider believing something based on physical observation, which, while limited, does bear a probabilistic relationship to what we can observe.
I may be missing something but why are people of faith having so many issues with this discovery. Believe the tomb was discovered or don't who cares. Your faith is just that (your faith) not anyone else's. Feel free to find your own tomb with the same names of people buried in it, Director Simcha Jacobovici is actually encouraging you to disprove the tomb. We are all unique in what we believe. It would be like finding Santa Claus at the North Pole or the tooth fairy, things we were taught to believe in as children. Why is this tomb such a problem?
Hi, Ssedlmayr. I appreciate your interaction with my post. Maybe we will even be able to advance the conversation!
When I speak about a faith commitment, I am refering to one's acceptance of the principles through which they attempt to understand their perceptions and experiences. For example, you mentioned that "there is a qualitative difference between saying...that one ought to believe in something irrespective of physical observation...and...saying that one ought to consider believing something based on physical observation." However, you do not address the fact that this statement is not verifiable by way of physical observation. The idea that "one ought to believe something based on physical observation" is an idea that is not verifiable by such observations. Rather, it is a belief that is held "irrespective of physical observation." Consequently, those beliefs which a person holds that are based upon physical observation are really not justified by the fact that they were physcially observable since the validity of such an epistemology is not itself observationally verifiable. Rather, it is a faith commitment.
Furthermore, this does not speak to the signficance of the observations that we make. While we might observe certain phenomena, the signficance of those phenomena is something that we ascribe to them. The ascription of significance to phenomena is done in light of what we beleive about our world, God, experience, humanity, events, etc. Thus, in and of itself, observation is not a mechanism by which one can come to understand anything. Rather, interpretation must come in light of our faith commitments.
I am interested why anyone with profound faith would feel the need to defend and protect God. Christlike actions and words are a much better way to defend God-not slinging arrows at persons who don't hold the same exact beliefs that you do. I don't believe in a physical resurrection...maybe an etheral body resurrection..or a spiritual body resurrection-so I am fascinated with anything historical that gives us pieces of Jesus' life. The makers of this film did not say it positively IS the tomb of Christ...they simply showed what made it seem plausible. Many of the translations of the bible contain the agendas and cultures of the translators. Who pretends to have the Absolute Truth?
steve_1382, if we accept your premise that all of humankind's knowledge is a subset of divine knowledge, I don't think that gets us very far, because we don't know what the scope of divine knowledge is. If we take the commonly held Christian view that it is infinite, that still doesn't do anything to narrow down the limits of our own knowledge, since we have an infinite set to choose from. If, on the other hand, we simply admit that there is a vast amount of knowledge that we do not have access to, be that because it is divine or for no discernible reason, we can then start to draw the boundaries around our own knowledge based upon what we can observe.
The reason I prefer secular epistemologies like the philosophy of science is that they admit this shortcoming - the limit of our knowledge - right up front and proceed from there, contrary to what I think is a common misperception among the devout religious that in fact the opposite is true. This derives from the discipline of philosophy itself, founded as it was on the notion of "Eros", loosely translated as "hunger for knowledge", a hunger that can never be fully realized. Socrates recognizes as much in the conclusion to Plato's Republic.
What I don't like about the epistemology you described is that it sort of seems like shorthand for human omniscience. In other words, it seems to me like saying "I'm not omniscient, but I know a guy who is," and therefore I don't need to be omniscient because I have this external reference. Unfortunately, all of the points of access to this external reference are indirect and human, such as oral teachings and scriptures. I'm not saying that someone needs to produce a Polaroid of the ascension in order for someone else to believe in Christianity. However, I would say that a true Christian, epistemologically speaking, ought not to be affected at all by arguments from someone who comes from another epistemological 'neighborhood' if you will.
I will also say that I find it interesting that of all the religions that seems to produce the sort of fanaticism put on display, for instance, by certain individuals posting in this discussion, they seem to be predominantly Abrahamic - Judaism, Christianity, Islam and variations thereof. One doesn't seem to hear much about "Buddhist terrorists" or "Hindu evangelists". I know the latter was a craze a few decades ago at airports among a handful of Western practioners of Hinduism, but other than that, there doesn't seem to be much religious fanaticism on the Asian front. The few places where this does exist, lo and behold, an Abrahamic religion is present. I wonder if this has anything to do with the moralistic basis of Abrahamic religions? Asian religions, on the other hand, seem loathe to declare this thing "good" and that thing "bad", and the cultures that practice them seem better off for it. What I find interesting about this idea is that it is essentially what Jesus was trying to do with Abrahamic religions: strip moralistic judgement out of them. It's no mistake that most modern Asian religions acknowledge Jesus as a great religious teacher. Perhaps the continuing strength of moralistic judgement in the contemporary world, which Western cultures are very fond of, explains, among other things, why there is always this sort of backlash any time a 'literal' interpretation of the Christian bible is at all questioned. Thoughts on this?
Ssedlmayr, thanks for your response. You raise several interesting points to which I will try to respond.
In the first paragraph of your response, you express your discomfort with a Christian epistemology. You explain that the reason you are not willing to accept a Christian epistemology is because it is unable to account for the limits of human knowledge. This simply is not the case. The limits of human knowledge within the context of the Christian worldview are set by the limits of God's revelation and the conclusions that can be drawn from divinely revealed truths.
I would agree that the secular epistemologies limit knowledge. However, I am slightly less optimistic than you. I believe that secular epistemologies limit knowledge so severely that no knowledge is possible by way of a secular epistemology.
You seem to grasp the nature of the epistemology that I have described when you discuss one's relationship to God as the basis for that epistemology. However, the access to the external reference point is divine in its origin. In other words, the divine revelation which connects man to God is a divine work. God superintended the human authors so that they recorded God's message to humankind. Thus, while we might characterize this point of access as in some sense human and/or indirect, neither the human aspect nor the indirectness undermines the value of the epistemology.
In your concluding remarks, I think you make a couple of serious mistakes. First, while you do not level a direct accusation, you raise a question that suggests that biblical morality may play a part in the kind of religious fanaticism that often produces heinous crimes against humanity. In light of this you suggest that Eastern thought might be a better in this regard. On one level, this assumes the kind of morality which you are rejecting. Position B is better than position A because of the moral problems produced by position A. Secondly, to try to argue against a Christian epistemology by associating Christianity with Islamic terrorism is a fallacy. Lastly, your use of the phrase "literal interpretation" seems to suggest a spiritualized method of interpretation appropriate to the Bible which is inconsistent with the literary styles and genres that are included in it.
Thanks again for your reply. And while I'm sure that this will probably raise more questions than answers, hopefully we are both learning from the conversation.
jim, I hope this topic and subsequent tangential spin that ensued shortly after initiator came under relentless toxic gnostic attack prevented any meaningful discussion whereby queries addressed to you do not have to be sifted and sorted out from vitriolic personal aggrandizement. In every topic I encounter this tired, old, worn out, used and abused gnostic onslaught. I attempt to refocus the discusssion to the start point, typical talk past one another, character assassination, gnostic gain saying, one-upmanship snide remarking that glibly passes for serious discussion ensues.
Jim, do you tolerate this type of behavior in classes you teach. Would you accept the writing style and content of these posters in your classroom? I bring this up in to illustrate the present state of edjikayshun in this country. Like Shania Twain said, it don't impress me much.
A poster -blankman- asked me what profound statements did dolliee bring up that were of significance? I point to the entire set of vitriolic incendiary threads he initiated, when I inserted my usual theme. Jesus always has the last word, which promptly fell on deaf ears. One poster wanted to avoid the hell fire and damnation bit but forgot what else I brought up about violations of the 1st Commandment. Do these posters think they are immune from 1st Commandment injunctions I brought up?
Jim, I am extremely disappointed in the lack of intellectual integrity of the Professors on the panel to confront Cameron's dog and pony show fraud and why you didn't call the gnostic crowds' bluff and tell them after 2,000 years of perpetual failure its time for gnostics to pluck their marbles out of the sandbox, go home, call it a day, ...forever.
Steve, Ssedlmayr, thank you for bringing this topic to an intelligent place.
Ssedlmayr, I found what you brought up about the moralistic basis of certain religions very interesting. While I of course would not say one religion is inferior to another, faith informs one's actions and is a driving force in the lives of many people. Maybe it isn't politically correct to say that some religions are, more than others, susceptible to fanaticism, but it is interesting. More than that, our religious background influences the way we respond to topics such as this one.
For the sake of clarity, I am a Celtic Pagan. I have no stake in Jesus being proved mortal or divine. I find Christianity in general and Jesus in particular very interesting, and that's why I'm here. I believe in just about everything, but in discussions like these I try to leave those beliefs out and base my arguments on historical fact and logical suppositions.
Now I'm going to slide back out, because the conversation has gotten a bit more intelligent than myself. Please, keep talking!
This documentary showed the shoddiest of research that I have ever witnessed. I would have more respect for the creators if they would have been more speculative and stated that it was a possibility that needed more research.
More research, from unbiased archaelogists and historians need to be done. Armed guards should be posted on the sight. All the buried bones and bone boxes should be put under lock and key. (Also some arrests should be made for breaking in without the IAA.)
Personally I say "bring it on." But let's do this research right, don't give us half-baked ideas, but thorough meticulous research from the best minds, not money-grabbing producers.
Hmmm... I breezed through this thread, and thought I'd throw in my two cents: We're missing the central point of the whole Jesus myth, and that was his teaching of the path towards Gnosis. Paul, who was accredited as being the primary person to spread the word was a great salesman. He spread the word by claiming godly attributes to Jesus. We know that in order to convert the gentiles, he westernized the message and dropped certain aspects which the greeks found untasteful such as the covenant of circumcision. Is it such a stretch to think that by saying, "Jesus taught the true path to god" wouldn't be as inspiring as "Jesus was god walking the earth and wants us to follow."? Perhaps the miracles, the divinity, and the bodily resurection were a sales technique to move the message, which ultimately got dropped on the wayside. People focused their attention on the articles of belief rather than the ideas themselves. We all know that today's bible was decided on at the council of Nicea, and that texts which didn't mesh with the church's unquestionable system of control were dropped. The message has most definetly been distorted. I personally believe that Jesus's message was that he was god, and if we apply ourselves, live good lives and make our own connections, we may all be god as well... Every man and woman is a star... The argument between Catholic(Universal) and Gnostic is an ancient one. The Catholics want to control through belief, and the Gnostics teach that one must work very hard to form one's own relationship with the divine.
Posted 03-07-07 12:01 PM How To Put The Two Archeo-Trash "Jesus Tomb" Stupid Filmmakers OUT OF BUSINESS With Just An Ayn Rand As Our Lady The Wiz Doll And 1/2 The Copyright, Freely Used As Lawful Fair Comment, Of "MacArthur Park"
First, let me introduce everyone to my Ayn Rand as Our Lady The Wiz doll... which I acquired in 1981 while engaged in active communication with the real Ayn Rand regarding fair use of rock songs to stone people like Nathaniel Branden. Ayn who was then living in Manhattan, while I was living in Riverdale, in New York.
During this time I once encountered someone selling dolls that purported to be The Virgin Mary but which had a neckline dress that, while still modest, looked a little too low cut for someone as important to Scripure as the Virgin Mary. Since the dolls therefore looked more like Dagny Taggart dolls to me, I bought one and called it, "Ayn Rand as Our Lady The Wiz", solely to defend the real Virgin Mary the only way I knew how.
Well, ever since that day and for over 25 years thereafter so far, Ayn and I have clobbered and eliminated SO MANY deceptive frauds together that this "new" one is hardly news at all.
Now, before those two stupid filmmakers cause a famine with their deceptive and as I already proved no-can-be MacArthur park food fair, we will here eliminate all their potential profits by proving that anyone who even gets a flu after watching their film should sue them for reckless endangerment:
(NO PERMISSIONS NEEDED FOR THIS USAGE)
" MacArthur park is melting in the dark
All the sweet green icing flowing down.
Someone left the cake out in the "Reign".
I don't think that I can take it because it took so long to bake it.
And I'll never have that recipe again.
I recall the yellow cotton dress
Foaming like a wave on the 'ground' beneath your knees.
Birds like tender babies in your hands
And the old men playing "Chinese Checkers" by The Tree.
MacArthur park is melting in the dark
All the sweet green icing flowing down.
Someone left MY cake out in the "Reign".
I don't think that I can take it because it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again.
O
O
O O
O O
N O "
ps- on other websites and my emails and faxings the n and o's form a pyamid like the tomb face with the cake-o above it... pps - "prof" Tabor: Switch to algebra IF you can. It's safer.
Jim, since you have not surfaced on these threads 'cuz its so toxic and you probably feel like you are walking into a minefield if you enter it, I will make another attempt at a refocus and at the same time give the gnostics something cognitive to chew on.
The whole shebang revolves around if or not there was a physical resurrection according to gospel accounts. What I do is to go back to an earlier more essential phase and that is why Jesus came to earth and offered Himself for sins of mankind.
In biology and medicine there is a concept called obligate parasite, its what fungi, viri (plural of virus), cancer do to exist. They are toally dependent on a stronger, viable organism to survive. I see a direct connection here to what gnosticism has done for 2,000 years, There is not a single nation comprised solely of gnostics even though the had 2,000 years to establish one.
Jesus came to earth to redeem sinners of a deadly spiritual cancer caused by apostasy of the original sin inherited by every generation that followed, so they can be cleansed and be able to come to heaven. Gnostics after 2,000 years have yet to produce a super-duper cancer cleaner for anybody. They can gainsay all they want, its positive results folk want, not hysterical rantings that don't help anybody attain the level of sanctity required to achieve heaven. Once gnosticism can demonstrate they are cancer healers and not a source of being a cancer can they happily co-exist with those strong, self-sustaining Christian believers who have no need for gnosticism to attain eternal bliss with Jesus.
What I wonder is why don't the Professor types who know all this already do something more than passively say, we need more time, we don't have all the facts. Are they waiting for antichrist to come along to help speed this decision process up? It make ya kind of wonder..
Please, keep talking!
