Posts Tagged ‘belief’

There are people who take science as a religion/faith and believe it as a fact

May 22, 2015

Please view my following posts on by clicking on <www.religiousforums.com > on the post # below; one may like to comment on my posts and or join interesting discussion on the forum link given above.

#167

Paarsurrey wrote:

Sure there are people who take science as a religion/faith and believe it as a fact. They are mythical about science as there are people who are mythical about religion. Both sides abound with such people.

Regards

ben d liked the above post.

Paarsurrey wrote:

I agree with you.
There is no big difference between a belief and theory, I think.

Regards

Belief in the One-True-God is the default position

July 8, 2014

Belief in the One-True-God is the default position; when one is off this position or derailed from the right path due to different factors one could become believer in many gods or just an atheist, not believing any gods.

Example:

Jesus was a Jew and believed in the one true G-d; he expressed this in a very clear and straightforward terms.

Yet Paul invented Trinity and made Christians believe in it; and later there were some Christian denominations that worshiped Mary also making into four deities.

Later when people in the West realized the wrong concepts of Christianity they altogether denied G-d and started becoming atheists; a counter-reaction of the wrong creeds of Christianity.

Regards

With non-belief in God ; virtually cut-off from the lineage of Abraham and Moses

June 6, 2014

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3795728-post482.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by metis

“Judaism puts far more emphasis on moral behavior than politically-correct beliefs, although I’m not going so far as to say or imply that beliefs are meaningless. What is most important in Judaism is the following of the Law itself, even if we do have doubts about there even being a God.

Now with that being said, I think an agnostic Jew is probably standing on firmer ground than one whom absolutely believes there is no God. However, even with the latter, Torah puts so much emphasis on following the Law that it begs the question what does God actually feel about an atheist in terms of judgement? I can’t be sure, so I’ll ask Him after I croak, but getting the message to you if I go first could be a bit of a problem.” Unquote

Paarsurrey answers:

‘A Jew remains a Jews even if one does not believe in God’ is a wrong notion;it smells like a racial approach in religion. If one does not believe in the One-True-God; one is neither a believer nor virtually a Jew.

One who has left belief in the One-True-God; he has left the most important and the most core belief told by Moses; with a non-belief in God; he has already denied spiritual status of Abraham and Moses and virtually stands cut-off from the lineage of Abraham and Moses who were staunch believers in the existence and Oneness of God .

Regards

Belief in existence of God is natural; like belief in existence of parents or belief in my own existence

March 12, 2014

Please view Paarsurrey comments on the blog “UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES” for your valuable opinion, even if you differ.
“WHOSE BURDEN IS IT?”

http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/
http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/
http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/comment-page-1/#comment-114

paarsurrey says:
March 11, 2014 at 10:56 pm

@unconfirmedabsolutes : February 26, 2014 at 12:26 pm

I will try to reply your queries or questions one by one; it may take some time. Thanks for reminding me.

Paarsurrey wrote:

“I believe in the One-True-God very naturally; like I believe in my own existence or my parents’ existence; and I don’t need any evidence or proof for that for my own self. This is my open standpoint; and this has come to me very naturally.”

unconfirmedabsolutes wrote:

“I understand where this is coming from, but I have to remind you, that I have seen my parents, I have heard from them, and everyone else cannot dispute that they do not exist. It is not that you do not need prove for your parent’s existence. But you actually do have the evidence that your parents exists.”

Paarsurrey explains:

By my words “for my own self”; I meant for my own satisfaction. One believes one’s parents as one’s own parents for the natural love, affection and care they take of one, never needing to go after the possibly available DNA proofs etc.

And for my own existence; I don’t even need that. I am because I have the consciousness that I am; that is ample proof for my own existence.

Does it help?

Thanks

Blood of Christ failed to cleanse man of his sins

May 21, 2013
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi has illustrated in the book written by him titled “How to be Free from Sin?” the facsimiles of page 21-22 of the book is provided here, one may read further by clicking the link <http://www.alislam.org/library/browse/book/How_to_be_Free_from_Sin/#page/21/mode/1up>.After taking account of the prevalent excessive drinking and debauchery in the West against the teachings of the Bible the promised Messiah says.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad says:

Please click on the pages below for a readable view.

How-to-be-Free-from-Sin_Page_29

How-to-be-Free-from-Sin_Page_30

http://www.alislam.org/library/browse/book/How_to_be_Free_from_Sin/#page/21/mode/1up

What if the body of Jesus was found?

December 1, 2011

What if the body of Jesus was found?

There took place an interesting discussion on the above topic, initiated by DoubleScorpion a nice poster on my favorite discussion forum, the hubpages.
The thread was already going on (with 416 posts till now) when I joined the discussion; I have given only those posts which related to the topic and the ones which were addressed to me. The conversation is given for public good and for the viewers of this blog with courtesy of hubpages.
One must note that the purpose of a discussion is not necessarily to convince others or to convert others; that is done by one after lots of research. The discussion brings forth to light all angles on a topic; and helps one to form one’s own opinion independently.
I, however, respect and love all the posters on the hubpages.
One may access the following link to see the whole of it.

http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/82621

What if the body of Jesus was found?

OP from DoubleScorpion

Over the last few months, I have been wondering what would happen to the Christian belief, if the body of Jesus was to be discovered. And he did not die as described in the bible. And along with the discovery of the body, the discovery of texts written by Jesus himself and these texts were in major conflict with what is written in the bible today. If these two things did happen and were confirmed to be true, how would this effect or change the Christian belief? Would it be passed off as a fraud, would it be justified using today’s bible (apologetics), or would it be accepted and the current Christian belief modified using the new teachings found in the texts of Jesus himself?

Thoughts and opinions welcomed.

1. Paarsurrey

Jesus body has been found and he never ascended to skies.

2. EmVeeT

Mr. PaarSurrey, this response is to you, Sir.

From where do you get your information? Do you know how utterly ridiculous you sound?

“If” there was any basis to your statement, then so much of what exists as a form of faith people call Christianity would cease.

3. DoubleScorpion

I would think that the body of “Jesus” could possibly be found. The body of the Christ, that might be a different story.

4. Paarsurrey

Jesus and Christ is the same person.

5. Deblevey

Double Scorpion there have been many bodies found of men named “Jesus” or some derivative of that name, before during and after the time of Christ! There has even been found a ossuary (tomb) from the correct time span in Jerusalem with bodies of several folks, some related to each other, at least one female was unrelated. I don’t have the article in front of me but I believe the names carved on the ‘coffin’ (can’t spell sarcoff-a-gus, lol) were Joseph, Mary, Mathew, Simeon, Jesus/Jesua and Miriamne, the last person being unrelated to the rest.

James Cameron , the director, and some Jewish historian tried to prove these were the bones of the Christ, who had supposedly wed Mary Magdalene (Miriamne means ‘bitter’) and His parents – with Simeon being assumed as His brother and Matthew His offspring, but this has since been refuted.

Why? How? First, in those times, families were buried together in their ancestral homes…neither Joseph (Jesus’ legal father) nor Mary (Jesus’ mum) were from Jerusalem. They lived in Nasareth. Joseph was from Bethlehem, probably Mary as well. Jesus did have a brother named Simeon (not cited in the bible, but in other documents contemorary to that time. He also lived, died and was presumably buried in either Nasareth or Bethlehem.

At any rate, the family of Jesus would not have been buried in Jerusalem Jesus WAS interned neat Jerusalem because that’s where He was crucified – executed as a criminal. Therein lies several plausible explanations as to why Jesus was not interned in the family tomb.

1. Jewish law mandated He be buried on the day of His death, the night before Sabbath, before sundown. He was buried in a new tomb, owned by Joseph of Arimathia (sic) who later died in the British Isles, where his bones still lay. Three days later, that tomb way empty.

2. No family bones there, nothing but His burial clothes. The Jews would not have reused that tomb. His followers would not have reused that tomb. Say what you will about what happened to the body, the bones found in the Jerusalem tomb were in no way connected to Jesus of Nazareth, His mother, step father or anyone else directly related to Him or His ancestors, or His ministry.

6. DoubleScorpion

I am not sure about the Jewish Traditions…But, I think you make a valid statement. What if the writings were only in contrast to the NT teachings but supported the OT? There are so many different scenarios. Interesting to ponder.
Thanks

7. seigfried23

I respectfully disagree. Human beings aren’t nearly consistent enough to have their core beliefs challenged by such a thing. They would dissemble, and continue to believe in whatever it was that suited their emotional intelligence and upbringing, by using that largely deceptive device called language to wrangle meaning from the nonsensical. There is already ample “evidence”, in the form of internal inconsistency, that Christianity has no bearing other than from faith. Which is not to say that it is useless; not at all.

8. Paarsurrey

Sure Christianity will disintegrate; though some may remain clang to it.

9. DoubleScorpion

I would have to say, that I accept proof when it is right in front of me.

And why do you assume that I scoff at anything.

Seriously; Can we not pose questions for the sole purpose of seeing the responses? I happen to enjoy discussions and debates. We have no need to discuss anything if we both approach a conversation with the exact same thoughts. There is nothing to talk about, we both know the same things and say the same things. So why talk?…We can just look at each other and give a quick nod and our interaction is completed.
Points made.

10. The Blagsmith

Did Christ not take a different form and at first was not recognized by his disciple? So if they did find his body would they not just be his mortal remains not Christ the Son of God? – as he ascended to heaven – it would not be so easy in the wrappings of a mortal body.

11. Jean Bakula

Hello Blagsmith,
This is the way I understand the story. Christ did come back in a different form, and that’s why Thomas (doubting Thomas) did not recognize his old mentor. In the book of Acts, it says that Jesus remained on earth for forty something days after his resurrection. I read the Bible a few years ago, to make up my mind about it. I believe Jesus really existed, but that his message was both misunderstood, and most likely misreported due to all the different languages the NT has been interpreted into and from. He does refer to himself in different ways, and it is really open to interpretation when you read and study yourself. And I believe that’s what one should do, not take the word of a priest or minister, but examine the religion for yourself. I don’t think he expected a whole cult or religion to come about because of him. He had special gifts, and openly tells his disciples “You will do things even greater than these.” This suggests that he had information sources and thought in the future this information would be more available to regular people. Plus where was Jesus from the time Mary and Joseph lost him only to find him at the temple (at around age 9) and at the age of his crucifixion at around age 33? Some suggest he was studying in mystery schools in India, learning esoteric teachings. It is all very interesting.

12. Paarsurrey

Jesus went to India after the event of crucifixion in which he survived:

http://other9.tripod.com/scr/kashmir.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_years_of_Jesus
http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DXCZFRsyl8 a BBC documentary.
http://hinduism.about.com/b/2005/09/22/ … -india.htm

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-05-08/india/28322287_1_srinagar-shrine-jesus

http://mystiquearth.blogspot.com/2008/1 … shmir.html

http://www.alislam.org/library/jesusinkashmir.html

13. Aguasilver

Some of the links are no longer up there!

Took this from one though:

This is why it is irrelevant whether someone finds a body and claims it is Christ, for we worship Christ in Spirit and in Truth, not the man, but the God.

14. GinaCPocan

When Christ Resurrected he became ONE with God. Jesus yet a separate entity, and yet one with God. As we Christians are separate but will become One body.
Finding a body and claiming it Christ may crush the faiths of weak believers, but the true believers won’t be moved.

15. Aguasilver
Amen

16. Abhishek Nath

Do you really think that this kinda thing can occur….I don’t think so. Well I welcome your view.
What I think is if Jesus’s dead body is found then surely the Bible’s way of death and resurrection would remain nothing else but a lie which we all Christians had been following for centuries. The faiths of the people towards God and Jesus would surely change and Christianity would be called a “False religion” which was being followed by many..
But yes I don’t think that this kind of situation will ever come….

Thank you..

17. Knight6

There is a theory that his body is buried in a double grave in India Jesus and one of their religious leaders of old but to date not allowed to dig to prove scans of the grave show two bodies but only one name mentioned on tomb…………………

18. 2besure

And how again would you prove it’s the body of Jesus? Would you compare his DNA to God’s???

19. DoubleScorpion

We have ID’d mummies. We could probably not be able to definitely prove anything beyond a complete shadow of doubt. But it the markings on the “coffin” and any other “writings” pointed to his identity then it would be a highly probable identification. Same with the texts if something of that nature was found.

If texts were found that were supposed written by Jesus himself and it confirmed all current Christian beliefs, no-one would even question the findings or doubt that he wrote them. But, if they didn’t agree, then there would be all kinds of debates.

20. seigfried23

Interesting post. However, I think that this is wrong, and 2besure above is quite right. We may have ID’d mummies, but mummies have never claimed divinity, nor any other dubious supernatural accoutrements. The whole “point” of Jesus is his alleged divinity and godhood.

Finding a body could never be enough even in principle; you’d have to find some way in which this body had properties that no other mortal body had; even then, it might be Apollo. Or Hercules. Or Gilgamesh. Even in the latter case, the best you could say was that it’s the body of something not mortal.

And “no one would question [this or that]” as stated above is a poor argument from popularity, which can have about as much success as the belief that the world was flat.

21. DoubleScorpion

The point behind Jesus being of a Divine nature, would be called into question if indeed a body was found. Common thought is that he was resurrected due to the fact that he was in fact divine.

22. Jean Bakula

seigfried23 is talking about myths here though. So why do so many Christians believe what I think are essentially myths? I don’t doubt that Jesus lived at some point, but do think, especially in Genesis, much of it is myth. You have to take gigantic leaps of faith to believe all the stuff that happens there. And if you believe God created the world, science has proven that Earth is millions of years older than the Bible suggests that it is.

23. seigfried23

Another problem with “Jesus being of a Divine nature” is that you would have to decide what properties this would have on a body, if any. Jesus is just a name, and there is no conceivable way you could ever prove any body that you ever found was his. For example, if you found a body that was lifeless and yet had not decayed, that would be very intriguing. But that wouldn’t make it Jesus’.

Remember that “we” think of Jesus as the true God, just as the Greeks though of Zeus as the true leader of the Gods millenia before there was ever any mention of Jesus. Although Double Scorpion most certainly has a right to ask it, the question itself is brimming with too many fallacies of assumption; things that are actually very much in question, which are assumed true in order to ask that particular question.

24. DoubleScorpion

The interesting thing about asking this type of question, is that many are not actually answering the question. Instead they are arguing how it can be proved or “just isn’t possible” because Jesus is God.

The question is actually quite simple. Would finding the body of Jesus change your beliefs?

Finding a body, would imply he wasn’t divine but was just another prophet as some claim.

And if writings were found that were from his hand and they differed from the bible, then that would imply that the modern Christian is not really following the teachings of Jesus.

I was not attempting to validate Jesus’ divinity or lack thereof, or if he did or did not exist, or if he was risen or not risen. I was asking a “what if” scenario based on the “fact” that his body and writing were found, and how would that affect current Christian beliefs.

25. seigfried23

While I fully maintain your right to ask this question precisely as stated, the fact remains too that it is a question rife with the philosophical delineation of fallacy of assumption. You might not have intended to do this; but, it remains so nonetheless. In order to even exist, the question requires the veracity of several axioms which are not at all known to be true (much like if a judge asks a man in court whether or not he beats his wife. The man answers “no” and so he is regarded as a good man.

Later, it is found that the only reason he doesn’t beat his wife is because he is not married to the girl he actually beat. She was his girlfriend. The original question the judge asked made a fallacy of assumption). Now, while the fallacious nature of your question doesn’t invalidate it, and anyone may answer as they see fit, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that others would raise serious objections as to the statement, itself, before being able to answer it; particularly given the fact that the nature/strength of different Christians’ beliefs vary.

It should be obvious that those who have “true belief” would never waver at the question because it is predicated on “proof”, which is never a matter of faith. If you “believe”, then all that would just be scientists’ way of trying to sway your belief system. We know this because there have been countless occurrences which directly put the veracity of biblical claims in serious doubt, just like your example would. They either ignore them, don’t understand them, or distrust them.

In my teachings to physics students, I find that the most popular by far is ignorance of them; distrust is second. To ask the question stated automatically “validates” the divinity of Jesus; because if he’s not divine, then the entire tenet of Christianity is probably baseless.

Ultimately, despite the inherent problems with the question, it has fostered what appears to be months of debate, and so seems to be a resounding success.

26. DoubleScorpion

It seems you are not comprehending the context of the question. It is “scenario based” or “what if”. This type of question cannot be a fallacy as it is not stating anything as actual facts. It is simply asking a person’s opinion based from a hypothetical situation. There is no right or wrong answers.

I am thinking that if someone is wishing to justify the validity of a “what if” scenario, it could mean they are not secure in their beliefs and hold an immense fear of their faith being proven wrong and in turn completely destroying their concept of what is or isn’t “truth”.

It is like asking the question “What would you do if you won a multi-million dollar lottery?” Everyone knows the actual odds of winning, but “what if”.

27. seigfried23

Again; you are not quite there yet. The question about the lottery is completely unrelated to the previous, and cannot be a fallacy of assumption (note too that I have said “fallacy of assumption” and not “fallacy” as you said, which takes it out of context and thus changes the meaning. Your question is not a fallacy; it is a fallacy of assumption.

I urge you to see and understand that this is not my interpretation of your question, but what it is by definition, because it necessarily assumes something that is not an axiom). Winning the lottery is not fallacy of assumption, because we all know it’s possible! IT has happened before; there is no question as to its real existence. While the question about finding the body of Jesus is not a fallacy, it is a [fallacy of assumption], because it has the very dire problem that there is inherently no way it can conceivably, even in principle, be known to be true.

It can still be asked, and not be a fallacy; but it is a [fallacy of assumption]. You must take the phrase and not a single word out of it, because then you change the meaning.

28. DoubleScorpion

So based on your belief, the body of Jesus can never be found because he is “risen”. Others of different beliefs say it just hasn’t been found yet. And still other say it has been found in India.

My question is only a fallacy of assumption to you because of your beliefs. It is not a fallacy of assumption to all. Most of the other posters actually gave answers to the question and didn’t bother with if it would or could really happen. Your not scared of having your beliefs proven wrong by answering a simple question are you?

And of course we all know the Lotto is Real, as you said, people have won there is no question to it’s existance. There is physical proof…Can the same be said for Jesus? He existance does seem to be in question…

29. seigfried23

You could not be more wrong; demonstrably so – I don’t believe Jesus is risen, or even existed, with any more objective certainty than that Gilgamesh was a magic warrior. The funny thing is that the components to the answer are staring you right in the face; you need only to put them together! “There is physical proof…can the same be said foe Jesus? His [existence] does seem to be in question…” is where your fallacy of assumption begins, because you then go on to ask a question that asserts his existence by its very nature, despite admitting that it’s “very much in question” .

And then, sadly, you make reference once again to the argument from popularity by referring to other posters..but that that is your right. I don’t think the question, itself, is a fallacy, but it is a bit silly to take issue with anyone – as you did in a previous post – who challenges the validity to the precursors of your question. You have described a situation in which it isn’t demonstrably possible to arrive at in theory.

Pointing this out may enable you, if you are willing to see it, perhaps ask better questions in the future. It is, frankly, obvious that if the “body of Jesus was found”, the first and only really important question any Christian or non-Christian (such as myself, for example) would ask is “How do you know it’s Jesus?” You attempted to ask your original question as though it existed in a vacuum; unfortunately; it does not, it is irretrievably connected to several other quite valid questions – such as one of identity – especially if you are purporting to challenge the faith of so many.

30. DoubleScorpion

I will apologize, as it seems, you feel I am not fit to ask a hypothetical question.

I personally don’t care what people believe.

I am more interested in the philosophy that a question raises.

It doesn’t matter if Jesus was real or not, it doesn’t matter if his body is found or not. I am curious to what affect it would have on beliefs of a person who does in fact believes Jesus was a real person and follows the Bible.

I haven’t posted anything based on my personal beliefs. I have only responded to responses and ask follow on questions to get a better understanding of a persons viewpoint. I don’t have an issue with anyones responses, sometimes I am curious to the clarification of a persons response.

It has been interesting talking with you. Although I am still not quite sure what your actual point was regarding our discussion.

31. seigfried23

“Although I am still not quite sure what your actual point was regarding our discussion.” LOL. That much is clear.

Ah well; you can lead a horse to water…

32. DoubleScorpion

You haven’t made a point that seems relevent in anyway. At least not to me anyways.

You did talk alot, but I am not sure that you were actually saying anything.
Nothing you wrote about was relevent to the OP. And it seems as if you were attempting to debunk a thought or theory that maybe you thought I have?

Maybe you could explain your point, as it seems you thought you had one. I see nothing more than an attempt to insult a question asked.

Leading a horse to water…Hmm…My thought on that is, It is not my job to lead anyone anywhere. We are all grown and have the ability to find our own way. I am not interested in changing anyone’s mind (leading them to water), I am only interested in the discussion. I am interested in the debate. I am not interested in arguing over who’s belief is right or wrong.

33. Valerie F

I’m 99.99999% certain it cannot happen, and even if it could, how can you prove a body once belonged to a man who had no confirmed sibling or descendants, and whose one known biological relative also left behind no remains? And then there’s the problem of sorting out the extremely common names. Some guy named Josh, whose parents are Mary and Joe, is more than likely to not be the Josh son of Mary and Joe we’re talking about.

34. DoubleScorpion

Then how are we to know he even actually existed then? If we cannot confirm anything about him, then how are we to believe in him?

35. Valerie F

There is more than just physical evidence- but a claim to have found the corpse of a certain person also requires proof. DNA evidence proves nothing if the person left behind no biological relatives with which we can compare genes.

36. Lapse

DS… How are we to know he even actually existed??? 2besure TOLD you how, I think twice. Real Christians have faith. Unlike you and me they “simply believe it.” Its faith. You are quite obviously at least an Agnostic and maybe an Atheist, but DEFINITELY someone who doesn’t believe in a Christian God. Sorry THE God, not a God. 🙂

faith
   [feyth]
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

If all the info in the Bible is correct, like almost everyone else has said, we CAN’T find Jesus’ body, BUT for ME to answer your original question however, if someone ACTUALLY found Jesus’ body with his works? Some how if we all “just KNEW” it was really Him (since your hypothetical didn’t say how “we” knew I just have to accept that we know its real) then IF one of more people didn’t cover it up some people like myself would change to incorporate the new information. Everyone else would have to speak for themselves since I’d rather not write 5 paragraphs speculating what others would do.

37. DoubleScorpion

The questions I ask, leads people to think certain things about me. Truth is, I don’t advertize my beliefs. I just ask questions. It is easy to ask the questions that align perfectly with beliefs. It is asking the questions that really don’t have a set answer across the board that interest me. I like to study people and their responses to certain stimulus. And alot of the people I have talked with, both online and in real life, never fail to respond as expected.

38. Lapse posted

So you like to poke people with sticks sometimes even when you know what the response will be? Seems boring.

Also seems unfair to coerce the beliefs out of others when you’re unwilling to share yourself. Makes the discussion rather one sided don’t you think? IMHO you won’t ever truly maximize learning/growth without a completely two sided conversation.

39. DoubleScorpion

One doesn’t have to respond to the questions posed. But yet many many do. And for a variety of reasons. I have absolutely no reason to justify myself, my actions or my beliefs to anyone. If someone one truly wished to know and learn my beliefs then I would answer them. But the truth is, most only wish to claim superiority of their beliefs over mine.

I don’t poke, that is invading personal space of a person. I ask questions and follow up questions for clarifications. Choosing to answer those questions is on the other person. And of course is a part of the response as well. And as with any type of study or research, even when you know the result, you have to test it as well for inclusion into the equation.

And everything has three sides not two…”your side”, “my side” and the Truth. I already know “my side” and by someone answering questions I get a portion of the “your side”. The search however is for the truth.

40. DoubleScorpion

Have you ever heard of the “Socratic method”?

41. seigfried23

Precisely! That’s why it’s called “belief”. If something is true, then it doesn’t require you to “believe in it”; indeed, proof is rather antithetical to faith. Which is why, despite that this post concerns Jesus, he has no more objective validity than Ra or Anubis.

42. DoubleScorpion

Which is the whole point behind the question of IF the body of Jesus was found. There would be proof, belief would no longer be required.

43. 2besure

For true Christian believers, it wouldn’t matter. Faith is not based on proof, or it wouldn’t be called faith. “It is the evidence of things not seen!”

44. seigfried23 posted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

Respectfully; there is an inherent inconsistency in that very statement (even though it’s not your own): there is no “evidence” of things not seen (and by “seen”, it is generally understood to encompass more than just the visual sense). History suggests that this is the case, given the countless gods that people worshiped before Jesus; indeed, the mythologies that pre-date Christianity, itself, and from which much or even most of Christianity was copied. “Evidence of things not seen” are really just the stories that human beings make up about natural phenomena when they don’t understand why the storm wiped away their neighbors, or why the Sun “sets”.

45. Paarsurrey posted 2 months ago in reply to this

It has already happened. Jesus died in India and is buried in a grave at Mohallah Khanyar, Srinagar, India.

It will definitely affect the beliefs of the Christianity for a positive change.

46. Emile R posted

Of course. Who wouldn’t take the word of an illiterate that claimed he heard it from an angel? That’s the average criteria used to have information included in a history book.

47. A Troubled Man
Link above.

“The Urantia Book claims to be a revelation of the life of Jesus. It offers a detailed account of his childhood, adolescence and early adulthood and provides a comprehensive narrative of later events as recorded in the Gospels. According to the Urantia Book, Jesus never visited India; instead, beginning in his 28th year (AD 22, according to the Urantia book) he travelled with a wealthy merchant from India and the merchant’s son. Jesus was invited, on a number of occasions, to visit India by the wealthy Indian merchant, but Jesus declined, citing responsibilities relating to his family in Palestine.”

48. Brotheryochanan

Of course Jesus never went to India.
Jesus was sent to the Jews. Jesus mission was jewish based. Gods original people, to repent them not the people of India.

He said what he was gonna do, preach to the jews, be crucified, resurrect and then ascend.

49. Paarsurrey posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

Of course Jesus went to India. Ten of the 12 tribes in exile went and lived in India and the neighboring countries, so Jesus had to go to them to accomplish his mission and he had hinted very clearly that he would visit them like Jonah visited his people when he was out of the belly of the fish.

It is a racial thing to say that only Jews were the original people of the Creator God; all people are the original people of Him.

History tells us that Jesus did go to India and died there at the age of 120 years; if NT Bible failed to mention it; it shows that it was written by ignorant people.

50. A Troubled Man

No, it does not, in fact, you have provided links that said he did not go to India.

51. Paarsurrey

Hindu scriptures mention of Jesus going to India:

From SRI BHAVISHYA PURANA. Pratisarga parva, Chaturyuga Khanda Dvitiyadhyayah, 19th Chapter. (text 20 onwards).
Ruling over the Aryans was a king called Salivahana, the grandson of Vikramaditya, who occupied the throne of his father. He defeated the Sakas who were very difficult to subdue, the Cinas, the people from Tittiri and Bahikaus who could assume any form at will. He also defeated the people from Rome and the descendants of Khuru, who were deceitful and wicked. He punished them severely and took their wealth. Salivahana thus established the boundaries dividing the separate countries of the Mlecchas and the Aryans. In this way Sindusthan came to to be known as the greatest country. That personality appointed the abode of the Mlecchas beyond the Sindhu river and to the west.

ekadaa tu shakadhisho
himatungari samaayayau
hunadeshasya madhye vai
giristhan purusam shubhano
dadarsha balaram raajaa

Once upon a time the subduer of the Sakas went towards Himatunga and in the middle of the Huna country (Hunadesh – the area near Manasa Sarovara or Kailash mountain in Western Tibet), the powerful king saw an auspicious man who was living on a mountain. The man’s complexion was golden and his clothes were white. (Bhavishya Purana 19:22.)

ko bharam iti tam praaha
su hovacha mudanvitah
iishaa purtagm maam viddhi
kumaarigarbha sambhavam

“The king asked, ‘Who are you sir?’ ‘You should know that I am Isha Putra, the Son of God’. he replied blissfully, and ‘am born of a virgin.’ “(Bhavishya Purana 19:23.)

mleccha dharmasya vaktaram
satyavata paraayanam
iti srutva nrpa praaha
dharmah ko bhavato matah
” ‘I am the expounder of the religion of the Mlecchas and I strictly adhere to the Absolute Truth.’ Hearing this the king enquired, ‘What are religious principles according to you opinion?’ “(Bhavishya Purana 19:24.)
shruto vaaca maharaja
prapte satyasya amkshaye
nirmaaryaade mlechadesh
mahiso ‘ham samaagatah

“Hearing this questions of Salivahara, Isha putra said, ‘O king, when the destruction of the truth occurred, I, Masiha the prophet, came to this country of degraded people where there are no rules and regulations. Finding that fearful irreligious condition of the barbarians spreading from Mleccha-Desha, I have taken to prophethood’.” (Bhavishya Purana 19:25-26.)

mlecchasa sthaapito dharmo
mayaa tacchrnu bhuupate
maanasam nirmalam krtva
malam dehe subhaasbham
naiganam apamasthaya
japeta nirmalam param
nyayena satyavacasaa
manasyai kena manavah
dhyayena pujayedisham
suurya-mandala-samsthitam
acaloyam prabhuh sakshat-
athaa suuryacalah sada

“Please hear Oh king which religious principles I have established among the mlecchas. The living entity is subject to good and bad contaminations. The mind should be purified by taking recourse of proper conduct and performance of japa. By chanting the holy names one attains the highest purity. Just as the immovable sun attracts, from all directions, the elements of all living beings, the Lord of the solar region, who is fixed and all-attractive, attracts the hearts of all living creatures. Thus by following rules, speaking truthful words, by mental harmony and by meditation, Oh descendant of Manu, one should worship that immovable Lord’.” (Bhavishya Purana 19:27-30.)

isha muurtirt-dradi praptaa
nityashuddha sivamkari
ishamasihah iti ca
mama nama pratishthitam

“Having placed the eternally pure and auspicious form of the Supreme Lord in my heart, O protector of the earth planet, I preached these principles through the Mlecchas’ own faith and thus my name became ‘isha-masiha’ (Jesus the Messiah).” (Bhavishya Purana 19:31.)

http://www.salagram.net/Jesus-Went-To-India.htm

52. A Troubled Man posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

Mormon scriptures mention Jesus went to America. Funny guy.

53. Brotheryochanan

‘I am the expounder of the religion of the Mlecchas”

But Jesus is not this expounder. He came to the Jews.

We get something marginally close to a “carpenter” job in a story related by the Encyclopedia. As it goes, one day Salivahana was walking on a riverbank and saw a beached fish that was laughing at him. He asked some clever people what was up with that, and no one knew until finally one hermit told him the fish had been someone in a former life whom Salivahana in one of his own former lives, as a wood-carrier, had done a favor to. So the fish was laughing because he was happy to see Salivahana doing so well. “ency of Indian culture, 1278”

Salivahana is dated around 676AD.

Finally Salivahana is indeed, according to Wilford, “virgin born” but not virgin-conceived: his mother was impregnated by a snake gliding over her while she was asleep — in her cradle, at 1 1/2 years of age! (The author also notes a story copycatters may parallel to King Herod chasing after Jesus: a local king went after Salivahana, with a large army, to destroy Salivahana and any followers he had; the child, however, beat the king back and killed him, though he was a tender 5 years of age at the time!) But again, Wilford saw none of this pre-dating the Christian era.

These stories are not to be found in the Puranas

This is sounding very much like the Greek mythical god stories. There is no trace of jesus in any of this or what you posted. There is no former life, no re-incarnation – how is this possible for one people and not another? His appearance is different, his style is very different, there is no mention of a crucifixion, atonement for sin. It is totally without connection to the Jewish religion. There is no way the person can be connected to christ – a risen savior who ascended as he promised.

I have no doubt that Christianity went to India or that Christianity is in India, but that Jesus did not take it there I have no doubt.

54. Aguasilver

I think you can be sure that if the body of Christ could have been found, the Israelis would have found it years ago, they are very good at that sort of thing.

But for me, if the claim was made, it could not interfere with the relationship I have with Him, but it would destroy Churchianity for sure, Christianity would carry on as it has since he first revealed himself to mankind.

You either are known by Him or you are not.

55. DoubleScorpion

It would be interesting to see what the fallout would be of such a discovery. I, for one, would be very interested in documenting and studying the resulting issues something like this would bring about.

56. Aguasilver posted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

In many ways it would sort out the ‘wheat from the chaff’ i.e. all the people who had a relationship with Churchianity would need to re evaluate their position, whereas those who had a relationship with Christ would not be shaken.

Too many Christians have never made that leap of faith and started the relationship with Christ, for most the cost is too heavy, whereas feeling good in a church once or twice a week is low cost entertainment with a feel good factor.

No real demands except membership, tithes and agreement with the doctrines they support.

57. TJenkins602

It would have to be passed as a fraud. If Jesus’ body was found today, then it would likely cause a lot of problems in the Christian faith since Jesus is supposed to have risen.

58. Matrixelect posted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

I bet some Fraud is already trying to figure a way to produce a body supposedly belonging to Christ. I suggest you join the Yetti, Bigfoot I have a body crowd!
It’s not going to happen, so I cant deal in delusions and you can not dictate a reply in an forum.
If it did happen it probably would strengthen my belief

59. DoubleScorpion

A simple “what if” question, and we see such hostility.

I have never said it has, would or ever would happen. I was just curious to the “what if” with regards to faith.

You speak of delusion in the possibility of finding a historical person, yet many would argue that your beliefs are nothing more than a delusion.

I have not dictated a reply. I have posed a question and those who wish, are free to answer or ignore as they see fit. As you might notice, I said that “Thoughts and Opinions” were welcome. Not required.

I am curious to your last statement though…How would something that is not in line with your current beliefs and actually would say your current beliefs were in error, strengthen your current beliefs? I would think it would change them.

60. Dave Mathews

You wish that something like that would happen. It cannot. The world is full of “What ifs” but the facts still remain. He was killed. He was laid in a tomb, a tomb sealed and guarded by soldiers and three days later when the tomb was opened he was gone. What was there some back door to the tomb no one knew about or could see? I think not. You have to face it facts are facts.

61. DoubleScorpion

And again, This is only a “what if” scenario.

There is no actual proof that Jesus died and was buried as described in the bible either. As a matter of fact, the bible has different “facts” concerning the event surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus. So we still don’t have any “facts” that are facts. One has to take that what is written in the bible as truth based on faith. Faith is not fact.

And just as you say that I “want” this to happen, in the same respect you “don’t want” it to happen. Because if it did, it would completely shatter the beliefs of most, if not all, Christians.

62. Brotheryochanan

The bible implicitly says that Jesus was buried and rose again and Jesus after his resurrection said:
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, cling to me not; for I am not yet ASCENDED to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ASCEND unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Lets not forget about the sign of the prophet Jonah
or about the temple being torn down
or psalm 22

The resurrection is a point that commits Christianity. Its one of the, if not THE most important aspects of Christianity.

Faith, my friend, comes from facts.
The bible increases my faith.
The ‘fact’ that you do not call the bible ‘fact’ shows that you willfully ignore what scholars, theologians, historians, archaeologists and other noteworthy people, who after spending their whole lives scrutinizing, dissecting and confirming, choose to consider as a book of facts.

john Crossan: Jesus a revolutionary biography, 1991; p145
“That Jesus was crucified is as certain as anything historical can ever be”, he is an extreme liberal.
Skeptic, James Tabor says: “I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead.” Jesus dynasty p230.
Gerd Ludemann and Bart Ehrman, atheist NT critic and agnostic -in that order, say: Jesus crucifixion is an indisputable fact.

We have friends of the bible and enemies of the bible mentioned above. To have enemies attestation, corroborating stories is definitely noteworthy.

Tacitus, a historian, says: “Jesus suffered the extreme penalty during he reign of Tiberius”.
Josephus reports, “Pilate condemned him to be crucified”.
Lucian of Samosata, a greek satirist mentions the crucifixion.
Mara bar-Serapion, a pagan, confirms jesus was crucified. “What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished”.
The Jewish Talmud proclaims that jesus was hanged. (They used hanged instead of crucified because He that is hanged on a tree is cursed of God (Deuteronomy 21:23)
and some other sources.
That christians died for their belief, suffered and were tortured speaks volumes for the amount of belief they had and ya just don’t get that kind of belief from not understanding.
Jesus body will never be found
But it will be seen again

63. Incomeguru

Who on earth will discover the body of Jesus? Let’s just rule that out.

64. DoubleScorpion

Always nice to see those not willing to think or consider things from outside of the box.

65. PARASMART

It would mean that Jesus did not ascend to heaven in the flesh as that stupid bible says! The whole thing is a story. And what about the bodies of lesser known bible figures like John the Baptist? The Virgin Mary? John the Apostle? Mark? Luke? No man in real life ever defeated death. And there was never a real man named Jesus in history. I know I researched it.

66. Aguasilver

Balderdash, I know, I’ve met Him.

67. Earnestshub posted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

Balderdash! He never existed, and even in your story the guy has been dead for thousands of years.
What do you mean you’ve met him? That is crazy talk!

68. Aguasilver

meet   [meet] Show IPA verb, met, meet•ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to come upon; come into the presence of; encounter.
2. to become acquainted with; be introduced to.
3. to join at an agreed or designated place or time.
4. to be present at the arrival of.
5. to come to or before (one’s notice, or a means of noticing, as the eyes or ears).

Whose crazy?

OK, I’m still waiting for No 4 to happen, but it will, and then we will see who are the crazy ones!

Now if you did not meet him during your three years in faith, it explains a lot!

69. Aguasilver

You mean you did meet with Christ, but now wish to deny it?

I can understand that, someone who spends so much time denying God must have a reason, and whatever your reason is, I am sorry you decided to put your faith in mankind rather than God, but perplexed about why you spend the one life you have denying someone you say does not exist.

Why is that?

When I was a secularist, I just ignored God completely, and the words of His believers, so why all the effort you put in to deny a God that you say does not exist?

Nothing you will ever say will separate any believer from the love of God.

70. Brotheryochanan

3 yrs of faith and 30 yrs of study?

you are a mystery religion yourself

is this a contradiction?

71. A Troubled Man

And, that is what you go around day to day telling people? At work? On the street? At dinner parties?

72. Bucks here

Yeah they been trying that for along time………and soon they will find a body and say that it is Christ, not that it will be………They did create all the other Religions and look how many follow imaginary beliefs already…. Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all the other isms……..

Imagine they haven’t noticed all the other empty graves, there was a resurrection in that time too….. and documented…

73. LewSethics

The key word in this sentence is BODY, and not REMAINS.
So the Hebrew Archaeological Society decides they have been looking at their map upside down and go over there and find a tomb with the stone still in front of it and they roll the stone away and inside they find a wholly intact body with a toe tag that says ‘Jesus Christ’. The body would have to be glowing with a holy light or something in order to convince everyone, and anyone that touched the body would be healed of sickness and calmed in mind and spirit.
Jews would finally accept Jesus as the Messiah, the Ultimate Jew.
Muslims would decry this Jesus as Satan and do what makes us love them so much.
Most Christians would reject the evidence and cite Pauline dogma about the pretender blah blah blah.
I believe that Jesus taught some great meditation technique that got lost in the groveling and worshipping, so if his writings would be found with him and made public (a big maybe there) and his meditations could cause us to heal ourselves, then all the drama caused by organized religions would be seen as the comedy of errors that they really are.
(By the way, once Jews got their map properly oriented it was child’s play to re-locate the arc of the covenant…)

74. PARASMART

I think all three would happen. You seem like a very wise person. Thanks for sharing. -Brewster

75. Brandasaur

First thing first. If His body will be found, It should be proven that it is His

76. Paarsurrey

Certainly

77. DoubleScorpion

I did add the comment “And was proven to be true” in my OP. And your answer to the question posed would be?
78. Kschmutzler

If the body of Jesus was produced then everything that my beliefs are based on would disappear. Christianity only makes sense because Christ defeated death and rose again.

79. DoubleScorpion

Would you consider a different religion? And would you have any regrets for your life that you would have wished you could have changed based on this “new information”?

80. skye2day

FYI Christianity is not a religion rather a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Christians are the body of Christ. Jesus scoffed the religious Pharisees. Religion is mans doctrine on the Bible and much of the time scripture is twisted or ignored or devised to meet own needs. One does not need to be in a religion to make eternal life (heaven)it is by believing in Jesus Christ who came for the sins of the world. John 3:16

81. Brotheryochanan

The body was not found just a tomb and the tomb is just supposed to the be the right one, but of course, it is not.

The problem with Jesus in India is that the beatings and scourging that Jesus took, lack of blood etc. would have rendered him incapable of such a journey. To say that christ was an enigma on the cross would have to include that he was an enigma before Pontius Pilate and that’s a bit much to swallow isn’t it. If we suppose that Jesus went to the cross then we have to suppose he was beaten and terribly so, so there would be much healing time, if Jesus were not the son of God. Why didn’t he heal himself, he could but then that would be an act of God wouldn’t it and God whom we know is truth, would not have allowed a lie such as Jesus going to India to exist. And then we have to ignore the Gospel accounts, acts, all of the New Testament as well.

82. Paarsurrey

Jesus could take the needed time to heal; when he was seen by the people; his injuries were not healed fully as yet.

83. Brotheryochanan

It would be difficult to convince people you are the giver of life or the redeemer or God personified if you needed time to heal.
Jesus needed no time to heal is what the bible says.

84. DoubleScorpion

I think the texts themselves would do more to shake foundations of beliefs, than the body of Jesus. It would be interesting to see the outcome of such a discovery.
85. Cagsil

@Para

@OP- It would certainly make things a lot more interesting that’s for sure. However, I would have to say that it would probably be dismissed as a fraud. Too many Christians wouldn’t abandon their beliefs and if they did, they wouldn’t be Christians and probably go to another religion instead since Christianity (and all other sects couldn’t be completely trusted).
86. DoubleScorpion

Some would dismiss it as fraud I am sure of that.

87. Holmes221b

If the bones of Jesus were found, how could they be identified? Nothing exists which has the DNA of Jesus, so there would be no way of knowing to whom the bones belonged. And I would have thought that his bones would have turned to dust a long time ago.

If writings were discovered which claimed to be written by Jesus, there would be no proof either way as to their authenticity. As no one even knows who really wrote the gospels, although there is a lot of disagreement over them, then I would assume this would also be the case for any writings claiming Jesus as the author.

88. DoubleScorpion

We have mummies from before Jesus’s time and we have identified them. We have texts from Paul, that we know he wrote because he listed his name as the author and we have other texts that are claimed to be authored by Paul which we think is false because they are not written in his style of writing. Speaking of the texts, I am refering to Texts that say that Jesus is the author and can be dated to the time period of when he was supposed to be alive.

89. PARASMART posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

Prove to me the text from Paul in the bible. I read the dead sea scrolls and found none. What proof please?

90. Melpor posted 2 months ago

It would definitely change many aspects about christianity. For starters, Jesus would probably be put in the same category as modern day street ministers. The entire Bible would be discredited and many christians wwould probably be surprised with disbelief that the whole biblical account of Jesus is not true. The view of other major religions in the world would be affected in one way or another. The world would not be the same for many believers if Jesus’s bones were discovered.

Archaeologist discovered bones a few years ago in the Middle East region in a bone box with the name of Jesus writing on it but it was later dismissed as the bones of someone else with that name, since it was a name that was very commonly used in the region around that time.

91. Emile R

Well, I guess looking at it from a personal perspetive; I’d be more prone to believe. First, because we would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was a real historical person. Secondly, because I would have words I knew came from his mind. Contradictions might cause the faithful to fall away, but there’d probably be a great influx of new faithful.

And, I guess a body would be a great thing to discover. We can’t imagine being able to raise the flesh from the grave, but we might feel that a spiritual resurrection was within our grasp.

92. daskittlez69

Neither am I, I am just stating what the Bible and other customs say as well as what was the custom of the time. Criminals back then were buried in the Pit of Hinnom in either basically a trash dump for bodies(where criminals were buried) or in the Valley of Hinnom at the public tomb, which is where the poor were buried. If you go with scripture they talk about rolling the huge stone in front of the doorway. Tomb’s didn’t have round stones is one of the issues they had square stones. Also, criminal burial was a subject on which there were major differences between the Romans and the Jews. Romans left criminals hanging on the cross for days and a Roman never would have buried a criminal. According to Jewish law though, even criminals were to be given a prompt burial. “If there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but you shall bury him the same day, for cursed of God is the one hanged.” -Deut 21:22-23
Unlike upstanding citizens, though, criminals in the eyes of Jewish law would not be allowed to be buried in a family tomb. They would have been buried in the public tombs. I am not saying that Jesus wasn’t buried in Joseph’s tomb, but anything that has to do with the New Testament has been changed or withdrawn to make Jesus look Godly.

93. Metamorphose

Regarding your question, What would happen to the Christian belief if the body of Jesus were found?, I would suggest that you might ask yourself what has been your response or the response of others to discover that a spouse has been unfaithful? That is, does that kind of a disillusioning experience transform oneself? What kind of emotional and intellectual re-positioning must takes place in order for such an event to be absorbed? What happens to the relationship? The question of how upsetting experiences or new realities change our perspectives and self-perceptions is an interesting question. On the other hand, another thing I would say, in response to your question, is that while such a “what if” can be applied to all us humans and all the deceptions (and self-deceptions) that make the navigating of our relationships such a conundrum, it cannot be applied to Jesus the Christ’s life and death, which were not beliefs but facts upon which the Christian faith rests. Based on reality (secular historicity), Christians have no reason to think that the body of Christ will ever be seen again until he comes again to collect the faithful, though many doubters may believe otherwise. Nevertheless, I have come to understand that it is almost impossible to alter what someone chooses to believe, despite all facts to the contrary.

94. DoubleScorpion

And the texts, written by Jesus’s own hand? If these were found and were in contrast with the bible?

And if Christians think the body of Jesus can never be found, and yet it was found, what does this do to their beliefs?

And every atheist I know, will believe facts if found. And no I am not talking about the bible which is believed to be, but not proven as facts.

95. Metamorphose posted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

I doubt that atheists will believe facts if found because atheism is as much a belief–a matter of faith–as belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ is a matter of faith. I say that because atheists have always had available to them plenty of facts (outside the Christian bible !) related to the life of Christ. For example, read the reports of Tacitus, a secular Roman historian and political analyst who lived circa 60 AD. Or, read the works of Josephus, who was a Jewish historian (and not a Christian sympathizer and never became a convert), living circa 40 AD. He was considered by the secular world to be a renown authority. Their writings validated not only the existence of Jesus the Christ but also substantiated a great deal of what was said about the ministry and life and Jesus. Google it! Check your local library! Refuting the hard, cold, unbiased facts about Jesus would be much like saying there was no Holocaust. For some misguided reasons, some folks deny that the Holocaust ever happened, but who can take such a position seriously, in light of all the evidence to the contrary? One may choose to believe or not believe in Christ’s divinity–that’s one thing. However, a thinking person cannot logically choose to believe or not believe in the facts surrounding the life and death (and events after the death) of Jesus.

96. DoubleScorpion

The authors you reference, wrote about the beliefs of christians, not necessarily if those beliefs were factual or not.

97. Vinaya Ghimire

Your question is hypothetical so is my answer: We will forget about Jesus and look for another Christ.

98. DoubleScorpion

Why would we forget aout Jesus and look for another Christ? Why wouldn’t we…say…modify our understanding of things to match the teachings of the documents that were found to be the actual teachings/thoughts of Jesus?

99. Randy Godwin

Some Muslims claim Jesus was removed from the cross before dying (his legs were not broken as was the Roman custom to assure certain death) by bribing the guard well.

He was placed in the tomb of his uncle- a very roomy and airy tomb for its day-and recovered a few days later. He eventually returned to the places he had spent traveling with his uncle, Joseph of Aramathea, from the years between his assault on the temple money lenders and his reappearance not long before his crucifixion.

He supposedly married Mary Magdalene and sired several children. He is said to live out his life somewhere near to, or in the country of India. Considered a prophet and nothing more.

100. Randy Godwin

It would also explain why the church was so desperate to paint Magdalene as a harlot when the Bible was edited by the powers-that-be. The idea of the Messiah having a female companion who seemed to have a strong influence on him didn’t quite fit into the scheme of things.

So her reputation was sullied to cover the real facts by those doing the editing.

101. DoubleScorpion

The church did many things…A list to long to post here…and the ones interested probably already know and the ones who really need to learn it, would refuse to believe it.

102. Emile R posted 2 months ago in reply to this

Let me see if I follow your argument. You think Jesus existed, but the NT lied about the end. You use as your evidence the words of an illiterate that claims an angel told him some six hundred years later.

I can’t, for the life of me, understand why this hasn’t been accepted as gospel by the Christians.

103. Randy Godwin

Not saying I believe any of it. Merely repeating what has been said by some Muslims on these forums.

104. Emile R

Ok. But the church’s need to paint the Magdalene as a harlot can easily be explained, without invoking angels or magic.

105. Valerie F

The Bible never cast Mary of Magdala as a harlot. That resulted from people erroneously conflating several women in the Gospels. The sinner who washed Jesus’ feet, the adulteress Jesus pardoned, and the woman who broke an alabaster jar full of spikenard are either not named in the Bible or other evidence is present indicating that they are not the same person and are not Mary of Magdala, which the Bible describes as a former demoniac, rather than a harlot, that Jesus had healed.

106. Jo_Goldsmith11

I would like to applaud you, for a very good question on *what if*. I guess, those who may suspect that some things aren’t real will find themselves in the midst of things that are real. I know that I can’t change the way I feel and believe when it comes to my faith or spirituality. One needs to walk their own paths and hopefully while doing so. They will encounter those who prove those things that are very reality based. Many will come and try to manipulate the unevitable outcome. The courage it takes to seek out truth and become englightened, is the key! Take care..

107. Earnestshub

A fair question. Where is the DNA sample coming from to compare the body with?

108. Captain Redbeard

HAHA! Maybe the shroud of Turin? LOL

109. Earnestshub posted 2 months ago in reply to this

Good thinking! As the shroud has also been debunked, perhaps one of the other debunked shrouds could produce some DNA.

In that case we would just have to match the DNA with a body then claim it was Jesus that was in that particular shroud of Turin!

110. Captain Redbeard

I have never understood when Christians look outside the scriptures for evidence of their faith. The whole concept of Christianity is to have faith without seeing, so said Christ to the disciples after he appeared to them in a locked room with “doubting” Thomas.

Know what I mean?

It’s one thing to see the structure of the ark from satillite pictures and say oh well there’s something but another to be activily searching for these artifacts that will no more prove the words in the bible then a preacher from a pulpit.

111. Captain Redbeard

I would venture a guess that since the catholic church has spend the entirety or their existence covering up or trying to cover up truth, we revolve around the sun for example instead of all the universe revolving around us, the would go to the great lengths of covering this up as well. Tho the whole bases of this question questions the levitity of Christians faith everywhere I think that the fallout of such an event is self evident don’t you? I mean just use your imagination and let it run wild for a moment. The entire western world was forged from the pages of the NT. America’s system of laws was “borrow” from the ten commandments.

Time it’s self was split into two sections, B.C. and A.D., crusades, Islam and countless other things would be effected.

I would rather his remains be unfound IF such a thing were possible.

112. Midnight Oil

Lay his remains to rest next to those of Mary Magdalene under the Louvre Museum in Paris – problem solved ….

113. Cromper posted 4 weeks ago

History is about cross-referencing events, texts, and possibly carbon dating, amongst other methods.
There can be no way that a body of ‘Jesus’ will ever be found because there is no evidence either in scripture or events that points to any particular point of reference as to where Jesus would be found.
There are theories, but they are tainted by the WILL to believe that Jesus existed at all.

114. Brotheryochanan

It wont be

115. Cebutouristspot

It will be the world greatest cover-up waiting to happen

116. BeautifulNatural

When the body of Jesus is found, it will be found RISEN! He is seated at the right of the Father alive. The BIBLE is not just a book, it is the inspired word of God, and for me it is a settled truth that goes far beyond mere human capacity, one must receive revelation to grasp the love of God and to believe He sent His son to die and be raised from the dead so that we could live a blessed life both here on earth and in heaven. Now, for fun let’s just entertain your question. The body of what scientists believe is Jesus is found, then what? I personally would still believe, but this is just to entertain your notion. I am a believer…so I believe, simply put. I do, however, like the way in which you presented your question. I have also had someone ask can God die? I am always amazed by the imagination of people, so I am never offended and enjoy being opened to express my opinion and beliefs.

117. A Troubled Man

Then it’s confirmed, believers will believe no matter what is placed in front of them as evidence to the contrary.

Are we not then dealing with brainwashing?

118. BeautifulNatural

The same can be said of unbelievers, they will not believe even when evidence is placed before their eyes.

Brainwashing? Are atheists or agnostics brainwashed? I am not brainwashed…I am informed and confident of my belief

119. Paarsurrey

Jesus did not die on the Cross that is why he was seen after the event of crucifixion by many people; he was walking with an injured body and was still fearful of his enemies which is an ample proof that he escaped a death on the Cross.

120. seigfried23

You speak of all of this as if you were there, paarsurrey. If truth is truly your purview, you must start by understanding that the definition of “eyewitness evidence” is not subject to your whim. Or, if you choose to espouse something, you must be honest with yourself as to why – to what extent does emotion play a part. Too often do we hear words misused to support an underlying emotional edifice.

121. Paarsurrey

You may differ with me; but if you will research for truth then you will know that the gospel writers were not eye-witnesses; they wrote with a wrong motive. Jesus did not die on the Cross.

You may read the eye-witness account by clicking the following link:

Crucifixion By An Eyewitness.com
Presents
THE CRUCIFIXION
BY AN EYEWITNESS

http://www.harisingh.com/news2C1a.htm

122. seigfried23

dear paarsurrey; I’m not sure disagreement is quite the word here, since I was ignorant of your beliefs. Now that I have perused the link you sent, I see that even though you do not believe as I thought you believed, it is largely irrelevant: you haven’t solved the problem at all, just displaced it! That story has no more objective validity than the Bible or Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. You must submit that the only reason you call it “eyewitness evidence” is because the thing, itself, says “eyewitness evidence”. That is the definition of circular reasoning. It is tantamount to asking those with whom you disagree (Bible-believers) “well, how do you know the bible is correct?”; only for them to reply, “because it says so.” I am not saying either of you are wrong; I am saying the things you claim to be true is a misuse of the word true, since they are not objectively distinguishable from each other. They have no more ability to discern amongst the stories they tell than if you change a location or name of a person or date of an event. You are certainly welcome to choose to believe it; but to call it truth is a fallacy. I can write a book today claiming I was an eyewitness to the Thunder God Woten causing the 2004 Indian Earthquake; millenia from now, someone like you could find it under rubble and claim it was a “true” account of what actually happened. What you are doing is no different.

123. DoubleScorpion

I would ask, do you truly know the bible (the word of God). And if you do think or know that you do, would you be willing to put it to the test versus those who are “Atheists”?

I am not downing your beliefs in anyway. I am curious just how well you know the bible, if the body of Jesus and his writings(which differed from the bible) were actually found and didn’t shake your faith at least slightly.

And no I am not an “Atheist”. But I don’t claim to be Christian either.

124. pisean282311

heard about shrine in Kashmir which is believed by few to be of Jesus Christ…Ahmadis believe Jesus never died on cross and survived , came to Kashmir and died natural death there…

125. Paarsurrey

Paul who invented the Christianity; knew what was the basis of the religion he had invented; he admitted that if it is proved that Jesus did not die a cursed death on the Cross; then the basis of this religion would simply crumble down. If Jesus’ body is found buried like any other human being that would logically be end of Christianity.

The resurrection of Christ from the dead is the linchpin of the Christian faith — the event upon which Christian doctrine stands or falls. The apostle Paul makes this clear in his first letter to the Corinthians: But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty. … For if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we should be pitied more than anyone (1 Cor. 15:13-14, 19).

126. Deblevey

How can Paul have invented Christianity. Christianity is a name for a community of believers. You don’t invent a name. Luke writes, prior to Paul’s conversion, that the Pharasees, Romans and Greeks began calling Christ’s disciples and other followers Christians. We do not follow Paul…in fact Paul admonished his contemporaries from following him. Paul said ‘follow Christ. Paul didn’t write the gospels. Matthew, John; Christ’s disciples…Luke a physician and historian who later wrote Acts, and John Mark, who was a youth when Christ was crucified…they wrote the Gospels on which Christianity is based. Paul came after. As I state elsewhere…SHOW ME HIS BODY!!! But you can’t, can you? You are either a liar or woefully ignorant of the truth.

127. DoubleScorpion posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

Paul’s letters were the first Christian writings. The Gospels and other parts of the NT were written after his letters.

128. WD Curry 111

You mentioned the true Christian faith. What is that? So far you are talking about a false Christian faith. Is it fair to say you are anti-Christ? The Bible says that many anti-Christs will come. From what I am witnessing here, many anti-Christs have come. That would support Biblical prophesy. This is my last post here. I will be on the art forums for now on. Good luck with your quest. Big Brother is watching. The military is one thing, the militia is another. we see you on the bus with your maps.

129. Paarsurrey

Paul is the seed of anti-Christ; when it blossomed with the Church in full; the Church and its missionaries became the anti-Christ.

I am a supporter of Jesus and I love Jesus; and his 2nd coming in character- and that is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah.

130. Aguasilver posted 2 weeks ago in reply to this
Mark 13:21-23

And then if anyone says to you, See, here is the Christ (the Messiah)! or, Look, there He is! do not believe it.

False Christs (Messiahs) and false prophets will arise and show signs and [work] miracles to deceive and lead astray, if possible, even the elect (those God has chosen out for Himself).

But look to yourselves and be on your guard; I have told you everything beforehand.

Once more prophesy is fulfilled. well done parrsurrey.

131. Paarsurrey

Clerics don’t present any religion. Did clerics of the Jesus’ time represent Moses or his teachings; no.

Jesus spoke against the clerics, you know?

Should I quote from Jesus in this connection?

The same is true about the Christian clerics; they don’t represent Jesus; most of them are anti-Christ and represent the anti-Christ.

OOO

Hubpages is a good discussion site; one could comment there or here in this blog; comments are most welcome.

http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/82621

Has the science detracted from or increased man’s belief in religion?

November 24, 2011

There took place an interesting discussion on the above topic, initiated by me, on my favorite discussion forum, the hubpages. I have omitted some of the posts which were not directly related to the issue of the topic and which don’t add any meaning to the discussion at hand; the conversation is given hereunder for the viewers of this blog with courtesy of hubpages. I, however, respect and love all the posters on the hubpages.

One may access the following link to see the whole of it.

http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/86280

OP from paarsurrey

Science by definition does not cover the whole of human life; it only deals in the things physical. Religion covers the whole life and provides guidance and goes beyond the physical to ethical, moral and spiritual. So there is no, necessarily, any contradiction in the truthful religion and the truthful science.
No messenger prophet of the Creator God ever opposed science; they always supported science and the scientists if they were correct on an issue. Science searches reality with experiments while religion with experiences.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah of the era, supported science and exhorted to gains its knowledge.

1. CyclingFitness

For many years the Catholic Church refused to accept many scientific truths in the UK for fear it would detract from religion

2. Paarsurrey

The Church does not represent Jesus; Church follows Paul- the seed of anti-Christ.

Jesus did not oppose any scientific truth; he supported knowledge, revelation and reason; revelation enhances reason; they both are good friends.

3. A Troubled Man
That is not true. Science does not support your twisted definition.

Yet, we can see by your posts that your religion has not taught you to be moral or ethical, so your point is moot.

Yet, in the reality of which you have not joined, religion and science are contradictory.

4. Emrldphx

Science is not mutually exclusive with religion. If science proved the existence of God, would that somehow detract from religion?

5. Jesus was a hippy

Science only deals with the physical and since you cannot demonstrate that life is anything more than physical then it remains just that; Physical.

Science covers everything about life because life is physical.

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise?

6. Mikel G Roberts

Science is not just the physical.

Logic is the science of inference and rational thought.
Psychology is the science of behavior and mental processes.

Those are just two examples of non physical sciences.

7. Emrldphx

The topic of what is truly a science and what isn’t is debated greatly among those who are on these forums… some think that logic trumps science, some think vice versa. Some think only physical sciences where the scientific method can be applied are true sciences.

8. SpanStar

Science doesn’t detract from spiritual believe however how science is interpreted by some people does.

Take the event of Jesus walking on water there is no way some people will ever accept that idea because they can only accept what seems logical to them.

I was thinking about these super heroes we see at the movies like Superman for example and I decided we cannot have a superhero because we would very quickly make him/her our God because what they do we can see them doing and so that’s logical thus making it acceptable.

We as mankind have proven we can accept and worship stone statutes but never an invisible God.

9. Paarsurrey

Science doesn’t detract from spiritual belief however how science is interpreted by some people does; and that is their error; after all they are human beings and it is in their nature to doubt and err.

A Troubled Man

That’s magic, are you saying we should accept magic?

We have accepted hundreds of invisible gods throughout history, yours included.

10. CyclingFitness

Surely the fact that there has never been a scientific explanation of having a God that many people remain skeptical of religion?

11. Emrldphx

No more so than the reality of anything else science hasn’t discovered yet.

Generally speaking, there are two kinds of people. Those who think that things that science hasn’t discovered yet (invisible things) are ridiculous and those who think things that science hasn’t discovered yet are possible.

I guess there are also people who just don’t care…

12. A Troubled Man

By not considering the crank and the crackpot from the scientist, the rational from the irrational and the insane from the sane, your generalization lacks relevancy and foresight.

13. Emrldphx

It is certainly relevant. Some people think that, for instance, proving abiogenesis would prove that God doesn’t exist. Others think that it would only prove that abiogenesis exists.

[Definition of ABIOGENESIS
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter
— abi•og•e•nist \ˌā-(ˌ)bī-ˈä-jə-nist\ noun ]

Some people believe that things we can’t see are ridiculous. Others believe that there are things which we can’t yet see.

Science bolsters the beliefs of those who believe, and bolsters those who don’t believe in a similar manner.

14. A Troubled Man

Really? Some people think that?

Funny how you think repeating yourself without making the very same considerations between the rational and irrational somehow makes it valid.

And yet, what we’ve found throughout history is those who believe have been forced to change their beliefs in light of science. Bolster?

15. Emrldphx
Yes. As irrational as it seems, some people think that.

What’s irrational and what’s rational, to you?

Like people who thought the earth was flat, or the center of the universe. Belief isn’t necessarily religious.

None of my religious beliefs have ever been challenged by science.

16. Emrldphx
And your point is… ?

17. A Troubled Man
I want to able to quote this from time to time as it sums up your position in a nutshell while stretching across the vast expanse of fallacy.

“None of my religious beliefs have ever been challenged by science.”

Classic!

18. Emrldphx

Care to try and show me anything fallacious about it? Or do you still deny what the logical burden of proof is?

Show me one scientific discovery that challenges my beliefs.

19. A Troubled Man
Inspirational!

20. Emrldphx

That’s what I thought.

21. Paddington Green

It depends which field of science you are talking about. Old Newtonian physics was used by science to explain the universe without a need for a god. The belief in a steady universe, which had always existed seemed to show that a moment of creation had not happened, and so therefore there was no creator.

However, the Big Bang theory suggests that the universe did have a beginning and therefore has allowed the religious believer the possibility of pointing to science as supporting their belief. And some of the ideas of quantum physics seem almost like magic and supernatural, even though quantum physics has been proven to actually work.

22. Prettydarkhorse

some people have closed minds (not open) and they find ways in which Science can justify what they believed in

23. CyclingFitness

I sadly have no belief because i’ve not been shown proof in a god.

24. Mikel G Roberts

I’ve got proof, haven’t you heard?

25. mom101

For me, it has increased my faith.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Hubpages is a good discussion site; one could comment there or here in this blog; comments are most welcome.

http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/86280