Jesus' (yes that one) tomb found?

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Doc Savage said:
This statement reminds me of when Jesus said that Christians are the light of the world. Those who want said light are drawn to it while others flee. Jesus didn't go around looking for an audience...He merely was what He was and people reacted to that.
What little I've studied the book, I understood that most of the ones who listened the Christ were grownups, looking for salvation. They needed what he had to offer.

However, has something twisted in the pan of the centuries as nowadays our main method of spreading each one's individual faith is to introduce our youth into it as soon as it seems applicable? Children are influental, most of them take for granted what their parents tell them to believe. I'm no expert, so I can just wonder, does that result in finding one's own path or faith by habit?

You're a family man, Doc. How do you intend to raise them? Are you going to influence them to find a truth similar to yours, or do you encourage them to draw conclusions with the brain they have been given, even though they might be something completely different from your own?
 

Doc Savage

New member
Finn said:
You're a family man, Doc. How do you intend to raise them? Are you going to influence them to find a truth similar to yours, or do you encourage them to draw conclusions with the brain they have been given, even though they might be something completely different from your own?
I intend to introduce them to God and trust Him to reveal Himself to them. My daughter, at three, has shown herself incredibly shrewd. In the final analysis, an individual with any strength of character will eventually be force into a confrontation with his or her belief system. I have the utmost faith that Truth will win out in their lives. Will I educate them? Yes. Will they read their Bibles? You bet (a practice I was never introduced to as a child; no wonder the church as a whole is ignorant and self-destructive). But critical thinking will be included into the mix, not dogmatic tyranny. All I can do, and indeed need do, is point them in the direction of the Master. He can and will take it from there.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Doc Savage said:
But critical thinking will be included into the mix, not dogmatic tyranny. All I can do, and indeed need do, is point them in the direction of the Master. He can and will take it from there.
Still sounds a little too influental for my tastes. Up to my beliefs, there should be some leads towards agnosticism if one really wants them to make choices. Hopefully your goal is to get them confused concerning contradicting pieces of info (so that they really seed it out themselves), not ignorant to them.
 

Doc Savage

New member
Finn said:
Still sounds a little too influental for my tastes.
Again, if I believe in intellectual conversation only, I'm a hypocrite. Deuteronomy ch. 6 explicitly outlines the educational requirements that parents are to abide by. My dance, then, becomes leading rather than driving. In the most final of analyses, I'll stand before God and answer for their direction, not their individual choices. What I have to offer them is my personal experience, what the Bible says, and whatever wisdom God affords. The rest is in His bailiwick. To put a dash of my faith in the conversation, Isaiah 54:13 says that all of my children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be their peace. I do what I must: believe and act accordingly.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Though I still don't agree completely, I appraise the logic you use to get your point across. Not many succeed in doing so without getting the conversation counterpart onto his toes.

You will do well.
 

Doc Savage

New member
Finn said:
Though I still don't agree completely, I appraise the logic you use to get your point across. Not many succeed in doing so without getting the conversation counterpart onto his toes.

You will do well.
A thousand thanks, Finn.
 
"Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 93 A.D."
The writings of the Jewish historian Josephus on the allegedly historic Jesus have undeniably been adulterated by others with a pro-Christian spin.

"Tacitus, Annals, 116 A.D."
I'll let this
lay it out... saves me on a LOT of typing... at best the case is inconclusive for believing that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

"Pliny the Younger in a letter to Trajan, 112 A.D."
Even Christian historian Robert Wilken concludes, Pliny's "knowledge of the new movement must have been slight and largely second-hand."[Wilken The Christians as the Romans Saw Them New Haven: Yale, 1984, p. 16] And France writes, "for our purposes, looking for evidence about Jesus, [Pliny's letter] has nothing specific to offer. ... Pliny seems to have discovered nothing about him as a historical figure."[France The Evidence for Jesus 1986, p. 43.] Thus, Pliny's letter cannot be used as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

So there's those struck down, one, two, and three Doc....

From here on in, I'll leave you and Finn to congratulate each other on your posts here...
 

Doc Savage

New member
ClintonHammond said:
"Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 93 A.D."
The writings of the Jewish historian Josephus on the allegedly historic Jesus have undeniably been adulterated by others with a pro-Christian spin.
Undeniably is a tremendous leap of 'faith' on your part...Josephus mentions Jesus again later in Antiquities (in reference to John the Baptist, I believe. I don't have my copy with me) with no further explanation of who he's referring to. Not permissable practice for as astute an historian as Flavius Josephus. As to the other two, I'll have to research your claims and comment later.
 
"Josephus mentions Jesus again later in Antiquities"
Repeating oneself doesn't make a questionable reference valid...

and I'm outa this thread
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
ClintonHammond said:
"Tacitus, Annals, 116 A.D."
I'll let this lay it out... saves me on a LOT of typing... ...

Doc is much better at this then I, but here goes:

Lowder is an bit of an odd bird, and I will admit I haven't read all his work, but he has a pendulum tendancy when it comes to the History of Jesus, swinging from complete denial to "it might be true, you just can't prove it". His "Empty Tomb" argument is more of a polemical theroy which he espouses from his reasoning on Joseph of Arimethea and the account of Jesus' body in the tomb.

It's akin to arguing the meaning of what "is" is.

And I still didn't get a response to the shroud. In light of that, you'll be missed. :)
 

Doc Savage

New member
Pale Horse said:
Doc is much better at this then I...
Nonsense. The caliber of cogitation in these hallowed halls "makes a hard man humble," to quote Murray Head. Between you, CH, Finn, and several others, I richly enjoy our "fireside chats."

Mutual admiration society, Scene 2, fades to black...;)
 

Aaron H

Moderator Emeritus
Looks like I missed most of the good conversation here...Doc, Finn, & Thanatos all well spoken positions.

Here is some food for thought, if (and this is a BIG if) the tomb and bones were proven to be 100% real (note: I do not think they are) what do you think the outcome of such a revelation would be?
 
Last edited:

Gustav

New member
I really doubt anything would come of it.

What, suddenly all Christians see that their religion is flawed and for once take into consideration that there may not actually be a god? That never worked before and it won't work now.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Gotta agree with Gustav.

Especially if you check out the banter between Clinton and Doc... if swaying one man out of his chosen position is proving to be an impossible task, think about one billion.

<small>Although many of those are Christians simply by name, not ideals.</small>
 

Doc Savage

New member
Gustav said:
What, suddenly all Christians see that their religion is flawed and for once take into consideration that there may not actually be a god?
Some of us considered that very thing for years before we came to Christ. Generalizations bad, Gustav.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
If it were true....hmmm

I think C.S. Lewis weighed the ramifications of just such a possibility in his examination of miracles in his book by the same name. From an empiricle standpoint, it is the quintessential fulcrum of Christian faith. Reasoning Lewis' position forward I would conclude that if the bones were determined to be His, it would infact reduce this planet to a nonsensical anarchy.

Personally, I think it would take more faith to believe that the predictable events of the universe we can see with the naked eye are only random anarchy (if the bones are 'real') then to understand the cause and effect of a Creator's order. Once that concept is understood, the rest of the miracles of Christianity can be better realized and accepted.
 
"suddenly all Christians see that their religion is flawed"

As faith is the surrender of reason and logic, no amount of evidence is capable of showing anyone the flaws in their religions, no matter how apparent they are.

Anymore than you could 'talk' someone out of any other viral infection.

So you're absolutely right, Gustav.
 
Top