The Tomb of Jesus Found - With His Remains?

[Teallaura]

Have you read the Basketball court debate between Rayado and myself regarding all this? If not, I suggest you do so and maybe even explore those books and websites I present in that thread.

Also maybe you could watch those videos I posted for ApologiaPhoenix.

Or maybe I could find out what you have to say before bothering to look at a bunch of stuff that is right now very likely total junk. I'm not impressed by 'go read this' and less impressed by someone who can't answer a straight question without resorting to it.

If and when you give enough of an answer to show that there might be something worth looking at I'll consider it. Otherwise, it's just crud you are dredging up because you're too lazy or incapable of arguing for yourself.

Or maybe it's a metaphor for actual debate? :cs:

[sylvius]

We'll try this again.

Jesus said that some standing there then--the group that he was addressing--would still be alive when the kingdom of God came in power. You mean to tell me that there are people still alive that heard Jesus speak?

no, Jesus didn't say that, but:

Scripture Verse:

He also said to them, "Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power."

it is a big difference.

most people are blind against God's Kingdom.

right after this verse comes the story about the transfiguration of Jesus.


and note what the Gospel is about:

"The time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God has drawn near" (Mark 1:15), i.e., right in this moment.

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."(Mathew 18:20)

note that "in the midst" is Hebrew "b'kerev" -- from root ""karav' = to approach, draw near.
"karov" = near, "b'karov'"= soon.

[sylvius]

Acts chapter one says he rose into the sky.

Acts 1:9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes

you might ask why the bodily ascension of Jesus is only mentioned here, and in no other place; since it seems to be such fundamental experience for your Christian conviction.

same about the empty grave.

why is there only mentioning of it in the four Gospels?

why didn't Peter mention it in his speeches?

And why didn't Paul never mention it?

same with the immaculate conception - virgin birth.

i think Acts 1:9 is written after Daniel 7:13.

it is not the description of an historical event.

it is kind of parable.

like the stories of the empty grave and the immaculate conception.

[Scruffy]

Or maybe I could find out what you have to say before bothering to look at a bunch of stuff that is right now very likely total junk.

You sure sound hostile. Ok, I'll give you a little sample. I'll try to start in the beginning, and if you want to pursue it, I'll take you on in another thread or something.

So, "in the beginning..." there was the most basic, universal, and influential category of mystical experience, which is called by many in a wide sense the "Unity" category. It's old...very old, and it's independent of race, gender, religion, etc.

The experience of "Unity" involves a process of temporary ego loss and is generally expressed in one of three ways: The ego is absorbed into that which transcends it, or as an inward process by which the ego gains pure awareness of self, or as a combination of the two. This latter is described by William James, "In mystic states we both become one with the Absolute and we become aware of our oneness".

2.2.1 Union with God

“Union” with God signifies a rich family of experiences rather than a single experience. “Union” involves a falling away of the separation between a person and God, short of identity. Christian mystics have variously described union with the Divine. This includes Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) describing unification as “mutuality of love,” Henry Suso (1295-1366) likening union with God to a drop of water falling into wine, taking on the taste and color of the wine (Suso, 1953, p. 185), and Jan van Ruysbroeck (1293-1381) describing union as “iron within the fire and the fire within the iron” (see Pike, 1992, Chapter 2). Generally, medieval Christian mysticism had at least three stages, variously described, in the union-consciousness: quiet, essentially a prelude to the union with God, full union, and rapture, the latter involving a feeling of being “carried away” beyond oneself (see Pike, 1992, Chapter 1).

2.2.2 Identity with God

Theistic mystics sometimes speak as though they have a consciousness of being fully absorbed into or even identical with God. Examples are the Islamic Sufi mystic al-Husayn al-Hallaj (858-922) proclaiming, “I am God” (see Schimmel, 1975, Chapter 2), and the Jewish kabbalist, Isaac of Acre (b. 1291?), who wrote of the soul being absorbed into God “as a jug of water into a running well.” (see Idel, 1988, p. 67.) Also, the Hasidic master, R. Shneur Zalman of Liady (1745-1812) wrote of a person as a drop of water in the ocean of the Infinite with an illusory sense of individual “dropness.” And, the (heretical) Christian mystic, Meister Eckhart (c. 1260-1327/8) made what looked very much like identity-declarations (see McGinn, 2001 and Smith, 1997). It is an open question, however, when such declarations are to be taken as identity assertions, with pantheistic or acosmic intentions, and when they are perhaps hyperbolic variations on descriptions of union-type experiences.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/

Paradox, ineffability, and bliss are common characteristics of a Unity experience. It is not always clear whether the experience, a mystical object, or both, are supposed to be paradoxical. The sense of distinction between self and other, subject and object is temporarily lost somehow, and consciousness seems to expand to include everything and everyone. It's hard to use language at that point, because words by their very nature create distinctions. During the Unity state there are no distinctions. All a mystic can really think or say at that point is, "I AM..."

Unity experiences vary in intensity, and can occur spontaneously. There are other categories of mystical experience which influenced the development of mythology and religion as well, but the Unity category is the most influential, representing the "top of the mountain". The highest spiritual state a Human can achieve. It's the goal of every mystical tradition and by extention every religion.

One of the overwhelming feelings that the mystic walks away with from a Unity experience is that all is ONE, at the most fundamental level, beyond normal waking consciousness.

So then debate, theology, philosophy, and mythology start and diversify where mysticism stops. What is the nature of that which mystics "merge" with? What do we call it? What is it's relationship to us? What does it want, anyway? Do we "merge" with it again after death? How and why can we even "merge" with it in the first place? Are we fundamentally the same as that which we "merge" with, but normal waking consciousness keeps us from realizing it?

How an ancient culture answered these kinds of questions is found in the layers of it's mythology. Expressed through various literary devices, such as metaphor, and various categories of symbolism. Since these are based on universal mystical experiences at their roots, cross-cultural similarities permeate every level of mythology and religion at fundamental levels. Toss in the large amount of cultural influence mythologies and religions had on each other as they evolved, and we have yet another factor contributing to the similarities among mystical traditions and the religions/mythologies that they inform.

"...The universe was not there; only I was.
Adam wasn't there; only I was.
That light of unity was "I"; I am the Everlasting, and I am
the prophet Elias.
The universe gets its light from me;
Adam took his form from me;
I am the All-Wise, the Knower, the Judge of all judges."

-Jalaluddin Rumi (1207-1273)

If we dig more deeply, however, we find within each of these religious traditions an inner, or esoteric, stream of teachings given by their mystics—those men and women who claim to have had a direct Realization, or Gnosis, of the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Moreover, if we compare the testimonies of these mystics about the Nature of this Reality, we find that, despite vast separations in time, place, language, and culture, they are strikingly similar—so much so that many scholars have come to view their teachings as constituting a single perennial philosophy which, like some irrepressible flower, keeps blooming again and again in the human psyche.

http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/traditions.html

[ApologiaPhoenix]

You sure sound hostile. Ok, I'll give you a little sample. I'll try to start in the beginning, and if you want to pursue it, I'll take you on in another thread or something.

So, "in the beginning..." there was the most basic, universal, and influential category of mystical experience, which is called by many in a wide sense the "Unity" category. It's old...very old, and it's independent of race, gender, religion, etc.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Wanna fit this into a creation framework. Are we talking oscillating universe? Reincarnation? One-time Big Bang cosmology. What?

The experience of "Unity" involves a process of temporary ego loss and is generally expressed in one of three ways: The ego is absorbed into that which transcends it, or as an inward process by which the ego gains pure awareness of self, or as a combination of the two. This latter is described by William James, "In mystic states we both become one with the Absolute and we become aware of our oneness".

Odd. In Christianity, God turns us into reflections of himself while keeping ourselves ourselves still. There is no I to lose because I am a good thing.

Paradox, ineffability, and bliss are common characteristics of a Unity experience. It is not always clear whether the experience, a mystical object, or both, are supposed to be paradoxical. The sense of distinction between self and other, subject and object is temporarily lost somehow, and consciousness seems to expand to include everything and everyone. It's hard to use language at that point, because words by their very nature create distinctions. During the Unity state there are no distinctions. All a mystic can really think or say at that point is, "I AM..."

Except in Christianity, we are made to be separate from God but reflect him. I note also that you say paradox and not contradiction.

Unity experiences vary in intensity, and can occur spontaneously. There are other categories of mystical experience which influenced the development of mythology and religion as well, but the Unity category is the most influential, representing the "top of the mountain". The highest spiritual state a Human can achieve. It's the goal of every mystical tradition and by extention every religion.

Hate to inform ya of this, but my religion does not have my goal to be to have an awesome experience. That's just a bonus. My goal is to glorify God in truth. Unfortunately, your religion seems to be more about me than about God.

One of the overwhelming feelings that the mystic walks away with from a Unity experience is that all is ONE, at the most fundamental level, beyond normal waking consciousness.

Would you care to tell me why Jesus was such a terrible teacher then?

All of his apostles believed in a dualism in which God and creation are separate. All of the ECF did. In fact, no one took Jesus's teachings that way until 1800 years later when some people supposedly found the real truth. Good teachers speak most clearly to their own students. If Jesus was teaching Monism, why did his apostles all teach dualism?

So then debate, theology, philosophy, and mythology start and diversify where mysticism stops. What is the nature of that which mystics "merge" with? What do we call it? What is it's relationship to us? What does it want, anyway? Do we "merge" with it again after death? How and why can we even "merge" with it in the first place? Are we fundamentally the same as that which we "merge" with, but normal waking consciousness keeps us from realizing it?

If you approach the ancients assuming they were like you, it is hardly a shock you think like that. Yet do you see any traces of such in the Hebrew writings of the Old and New Testaments?

How an ancient culture answered these kinds of questions is found in the layers of it's mythology. Expressed through various literary devices, such as metaphor, and various categories of symbolism. Since these are based on universal mystical experiences at their roots, cross-cultural similarities permeate every level of mythology and religion at fundamental levels. Toss in the large amount of cultural influence mythologies and religions had on each other as they evolved, and we have yet another factor contributing to the similarities among mystical traditions and the religions/mythologies that they inform.

I consider this massive question-begging. You do know the Hebrews were exclusivists who did not borrow from others around them. Right? (Yeah yeah. Read the Jesus Mysteries. I've heard enough Christ copycat myths. Been there. Done that.)

Also, why should I take the OT as metaphorical? Why not take the works of Moses as recounting actual historical events?

"...The universe was not there; only I was.
Adam wasn't there; only I was.
That light of unity was "I"; I am the Everlasting, and I am
the prophet Elias.
The universe gets its light from me;
Adam took his form from me;
I am the All-Wise, the Knower, the Judge of all judges."

-Jalaluddin Rumi (1207-1273)

I should believe it because?

(By the way, I even see dualism in it and not monism. If all is one, then what is the judger judging?)

[Scruffy]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Wanna fit this into a creation framework. Are we talking oscillating universe? Reincarnation? One-time Big Bang cosmology. What?

Um...it was a figure of speech. Lighten up, all of you. Jeesh.

I addressed some of your comments in that debate between Rayado and myself. Have you read it? If not, why? Do I need to copy-and-paste the entire thread for you?

(Yeah yeah. Read the Jesus Mysteries. I've heard enough Christ copycat myths. Been there. Done that.)

This must be the part I was talking about earlier where you take what I say, label it, fit it into your preconceptions, and hand-wave it away. Do you still plan on watching those videos, or have you now managed to convince yourself that there is no need?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Um...it was a figure of speech. Lighten up, all of you. Jeesh.

I addressed some of your comments in that debate between Rayado and myself. Have you read it? If not, why? Do I need to copy-and-paste the entire thread for you?

Yeah. Considering he did a number on you, I don't know why you'd want to broadcast it.

This must be the part I was talking about earlier where you take what I say, label it, fit it into your preconceptions, and hand-wave it away. Do you still plan on watching those videos, or have you now managed to convince yourself that there is no need?

Oh I am Dr. Phil. I'm just curious if my label applies or not. Do you think there are other figures that share the story of Christ in history?

[Scruffy]

I'm just curious if my label applies or not. Do you think there are other figures that share the story of Christ in history?

It doesn't and I don't. No one who understands how mythology works would say that other figures "share the story of Christ in history." I don't accuse the early Christians of making a xerox "copy-cat" of some other particular figure. I don't like the word "copy-cat". Jesus is not merely a "copy-cat". Ok? Is a human being a "copy-cat" monkey?

Some critics call Jesus a myth to debunk Christianity, thinking that makes the whole thing a dirty rotten lie. Those who do, don't understand myth. Calling the Bible myth is not calling it a lie. Anyone who thinks that way, regardless of which side of the issue they are on, is simply ignorant of the nature of myth and the mystical and esoteric insights in myths. Myth is not a lie, nor is it fact. It is, among other things, a road-map to inner truths, inner potentialities, inner realizations.

Having said that, I think it's quite clear that the Christian mythos evolved from earlier mythologies, just as life evolves from earlier life.

Look at it this way. There is a 'Tree of life' which illustrates the diversity of biological organisms on Earth and their common roots, right? Myth is sort of the same way. Mythologies evolve, diversify, adapt, and branch-off. Like branches of a tree which can be traced back to common roots. I don't want to chop that tree down, nor do I want to break off any branches. I want to climb it.

[JackC]

It doesn't and I don't. No one who understands how mythology works would say that other figures "share the story of Christ in history." I don't accuse the early Christians of making a xerox "copy-cat" of some other particular figure. I don't like the word "copy-cat". Jesus is not merely a "copy-cat". Ok? Is a human being a "copy-cat" monkey?

Some critics call Jesus a myth to debunk Christianity, thinking that makes the whole thing a dirty rotten lie. Those who do, don't understand myth. Calling the Bible myth is not calling it a lie. Anyone who thinks that way, regardless of which side of the issue they are on, is simply ignorant of the nature of myth and the mystical and esoteric insights in myths. Myth is not a lie, nor is it fact. It is, among other things, a road-map to inner truths, inner potentialities, inner realizations.

Having said that, I think it's quite clear that the Christian mythos evolved from earlier mythologies, just as life evolves from earlier life.

Look at it this way. There is a 'Tree of life' which illustrates the diversity of biological organisms on Earth and their common roots, right? Myth is sort of the same way. Mythologies evolve, diversify, adapt, and branch-off. Like branches of a tree which can be traced back to common roots. I don't want to chop that tree down, nor do I want to break off any branches. I want to climb it.

This same story reoccurs in this world again and again - one who talks experientially of the Father's Kingdom, and another who has had no experience mockingly saying, yeah, right.

What Scruffy has shared is not part of exoteric Christian religion, where people tend to be stuck in mental processes about God, but it is certainly clearly offered in th Bible.

I would suggest to AP and others that they read Psalms - which came from the Tabernacle of David, the place of worship where the children of Israel took their spirituality to another level.

There they climbed to the mountain top, ascended, where Unity, as Scruffy describes it, occurred.

When one gets close his soul begins to cry out - For you alone Lord, my soul waits in silence. Silence referring to the quieting or 'death' of the ego - the crucifixion of the self with all its desires and passions (the ego is only quiet when it no longer desires or fears). In this silence the soul waits for its Redeemer, for its Savior, for God in His Grace to reach down and elevate the soul to Him.

For those who also think that the Bible does not say what Scruffy is claiming, read John 17 as well as the rest of the New Testatement. God is not looking for separate individuals to pretend or act like God, but for temples of His Spirit. For individuals to be manifestations of Truth, as Jesus was, to be One with the Father, as Jesus was.

To see these truths in scripture, one cannot read the Bible with the mindset that my religion is right, but with the mindset of seeking right understanding at all costs (Proverbs), even if that means that what one's beliefs have been erroneous.

As far as myths, if I can add all of creation is God's stories, myths, as Scruffy said, pointing to higher spiritual truths, and if one allows themselves to see God's higher truths reflected through out this world (even the rocks sing out), they will begin to touch the immenseness of His Grace and Love, and how He has revealed all things, even Christ, through any and all means possible.

And so while the story of Jesus is unique to Jesus, because He has specific purposes in His incarnation, the higher spiritual truths that He revealed are not unique and have been revealed again and again throughout time, through many angels and Messengers of God.

One problem in understanding is when we do not separate the flesh and blood that Christ clothed Himself in - Jesus - and Christ Himself.




Jack

[ApologiaPhoenix]

It doesn't and I don't. No one who understands how mythology works would say that other figures "share the story of Christ in history." I don't accuse the early Christians of making a xerox "copy-cat" of some other particular figure. I don't like the word "copy-cat". Jesus is not merely a "copy-cat". Ok? Is a human being a "copy-cat" monkey?

Some critics call Jesus a myth to debunk Christianity, thinking that makes the whole thing a dirty rotten lie. Those who do, don't understand myth. Calling the Bible myth is not calling it a lie. Anyone who thinks that way, regardless of which side of the issue they are on, is simply ignorant of the nature of myth and the mystical and esoteric insights in myths. Myth is not a lie, nor is it fact. It is, among other things, a road-map to inner truths, inner potentialities, inner realizations.

Having said that, I think it's quite clear that the Christian mythos evolved from earlier mythologies, just as life evolves from earlier life.

Look at it this way. There is a 'Tree of life' which illustrates the diversity of biological organisms on Earth and their common roots, right? Myth is sort of the same way. Mythologies evolve, diversify, adapt, and branch-off. Like branches of a tree which can be traced back to common roots. I don't want to chop that tree down, nor do I want to break off any branches. I want to climb it.

No. I don't see the Jesus history as being taken from other myths of the time. However, as I think about what you say, I find it interesting. You are against labels, so you "label" me as one who gives labels. You don't like categorizing, but you are willing to "categorize" between esoteric and exoteric.

In other words, you do what you condemn and you are just as exclusivistic as I am.

[Scruffy]

Strawman.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Strawman.

Nice assertion. Show it.

[Scruffy]

Nice assertion. Show it.

Well I think you misrepresent my position twice. I didn't say that the Jesus history as being "taken" from other myths of the time. I said that the Christian mythos evolved from earlier mythologies.

Christianity and the other myths of the time probably shared some common sources. I don't think Jesus was a fictional composite character that was "taken"...I think there was a historical Jesus. This separates me from "copy-cat Jesus Mythers" and I don't like having my position misrepresented as such.

Now about labels, since I deny that I am a "Jesus Myther" I don't like being labeled as such. Which is something that Christians tend to do whenever they see the words "myth" and "Christianity" in the same post. It's a knee-jerk reaction, and I've been trying to get you to think about what I'm saying rather than label it as another "Jesus Myth" theory and hand-waving it away. Do you understand?

Now about my use of the label "exoteric". Do you deny that this label applies to you? I think it does, but feel free to prove me wrong.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Well I think you misrepresent my position twice. I didn't say that the Jesus history as being "taken" from other myths of the time. I said that the Christian mythos evolved from earlier mythologies.

Christianity and the other myths of the time probably shared some common sources. I don't think Jesus was a fictional composite character that was "taken"...I think there was a historical Jesus. This separates me from "copy-cat Jesus Mythers" and I don't like having my position misrepresented as such.

Now about labels, since I deny that I am a "Jesus Myther" I don't like being labeled as such. Which is something that Christians tend to do whenever they see the words "myth" and "Christianity" in the same post. It's a knee-jerk reaction, and I've been trying to get you to think about what I'm saying rather than label it as another "Jesus Myth" theory and hand-waving it away. Do you understand?

Now about my use of the label "exoteric". Do you deny that this label applies to you? I think it does, but feel free to prove me wrong.

I don't mind being labeled. If you think I believe that the gospels teach truth about external reality by esoteric, then you are correct.

I didn't say you were a Christ-myther either. I don't believe though that the Christians borrowed ANY ideas in writing the gospels. What happened is what they wrote, including the miracles and the resurrection.

I still see you as an exclusivist.

[Scruffy]

I still see you as an exclusivist.

Ok, fine. Let's agree to see each other as exclusivist. The difference is, you seem to claim the truth as exclusively belonging to the Christian religion. Correct? I make no such claim on behalf of any particular faith.

So you exclude yourself from all those who aren't Christians. The way I see it, I merely acknowledge your own self-exclusion from ME. I embrace all those who don't exclude me. Give up your intolerance, in other words your claim that your Jesus is the only way, and I will embrace you.

Now, can we move on? I made a thread about those two videos you promised to watch in Apologetics forum. It's titled The Power of Myth. Would you like to take our discussion there?