Log in

No account? Create an account
26 February 2007 @ 11:04 am
Just because he's there, that doesn't mean anything  
So, he's not there, huh?

Okay, Mr. Cameron. Please do explain this statement to me.

"But [the filmmakers] say the discovery of the tomb does not mean that Jesus was not resurrected three days after his death - a key Christian belief."

Now, I've always taken pride in my reading comprehension skills. From the KJV New Testament, I give you the following references:

Matthew 28:6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

Mark 16:6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

Luke 24:3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

Luke 24:6-7 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

Now, please, someone. Do explain to me how, rationally, you can reconcile this. The Apostles in three places claim that the body wasn't there in the grave where they knew him to be buried. Did they get the wrong address, just three days later? Did someone take the body, move it, and bring it back later to toss in with Mary Magdalene? People, if there's a body, then he did not rise from the grave. Did the writers not mean that the body was literally gone? Did they mean, "He's alive, cast off this mortal shell, so he's not here, just his old body," is that what they meant? Poetic bullshit answer, really. The easiest answer of course is that this isn't the grave of the same Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and so on. Maybe that's the case. Would it matter to you if it was? Is there ANY proof you'd accept, if that is the excuse you choose to believe? Just for a moment, admit to yourself that there's just no rational explanation you'd accept as proof that Jesus didn't rise from the grave. Admit it. It doesn't matter what anyone says; you believe what you want to believe and the facts be damned.

You can tell me that this would not matter, that the faith is more important than the facts. I will answer that to be fine, but never again come knocking on my door and tell me that Jesus rose from the dead, and that this is the proof of God's will, making Jesus' death more than just another human sacrifice or criminal execution. Your religion has claimed this for nearly its entire existance, that Jesus was NOT in the grave. You can believe whatever you want. Just keep your lies, dogma, and bullshit to yourself. He's dead. That's it.
Current Mood: unimpressed
Current Music: Midnight Star - Operator
(Deleted comment)
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on February 26th, 2007 05:19 pm (UTC)
Okay, if he survived, then he didn't die for our sins on the Cross. That's frankly worse for the religion than if the body was still there. If he was resurrected and later died, then it's still a load of bullshit and the whole religion might as well not bother mentioning the supposed resurrection and ascension. If the whole thing was just a big fraud, then the whole thing needs to be knocked the hell down yesterday.

Frankly, I have no problem with a guru talking in figurative language, having a personal life, and enjoying being alive in a world where most people can't bother themselves to enjoy a day, let alone life in general. Claiming that said guru was chaste and died in this glorious way when he instead went into the Martyr Protection Program is bullshit I wouldn't even expect from Crowley or Gardener. Mind you, I can't really say that it would surprise me from Saul of Tarsis.
bronxelf_ag001 on February 26th, 2007 05:13 pm (UTC)
Is there ANY proof you'd accept, if that is the excuse you choose to believe?

No, of course there isn't. Which is why all of this hype is just so much bullshit. THERE IS NOTHING THESE PEOPLE WILL ACCEPT as proof of anything save which suits them. There is always a loophole, a metaphor, a poetic way of slipping out of the patently fucking obvious:

It's all nonsense.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on February 26th, 2007 05:22 pm (UTC)
It's nonsense, but religion can be nonsense in the way that Through the Looking Glass is nonsense. It can be amusing, uplifting, promote thinking and examination of the human condition. Currently, it's just a big pile of silliness at best or at worst the greatest con-job in human history, a scam to which all other confidence games must forever merely aspire.

Frankly, I wouldn't care if they would stop claiming to be the One and Only Truth. That more than anything offends my senses of rationality and fair play. Stop claiming that, I'll have no more animosity for the faith.
Pete: Fantastic!greendalek on February 26th, 2007 07:09 pm (UTC)
This is absolutely fascinating. I presume there will soon be a flood of hate-mail and condemnation-heavy columns to assist Mr. Cameron in promoting his documentary --any doozies surfaced yet?
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on February 26th, 2007 07:31 pm (UTC)
Not that I've seen. It's all just advertising for the film, anyway.
docjeff on February 26th, 2007 07:21 pm (UTC)
Your tags pretty much say it all
Life Rebooted: absurdityhopeforyou on February 26th, 2007 08:28 pm (UTC)
Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

(Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead parrot.

Owner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?

Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.

Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour
ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

Mr. Praline: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?

Owner: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!

Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining that parrot when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the
first place was that it had been NAILED there.


Owner: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and
VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

Mr. Praline: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!

Owner: No no! 'E's pining!

Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e
rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the
bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!


Owner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh,
we're right out of parrots.

Mr. Praline: I see. I see, I get the picture.

Owner: I got a slug.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on February 26th, 2007 08:41 pm (UTC)
Heh. Which I swear led to the Life of Brian.
craigers01 on February 26th, 2007 08:47 pm (UTC)
I just loved the last two lines of the article...

Local residents said they were pleased with the attention the tomb has drawn.

"It will mean our house prices will go up because Christians will want to live here," one woman said."
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on February 26th, 2007 08:53 pm (UTC)
(laughing) I saw that, too. I quoted that to Ali this morning and then said, "with the unspoken words being, '... the idiots.'"
craigers01 on February 26th, 2007 08:47 pm (UTC)
I just loved the last two lines of the article...

Local residents said they were pleased with the attention the tomb has drawn.

"It will mean our house prices will go up because Christians will want to live here," one woman said.
craigers01 on February 26th, 2007 08:48 pm (UTC)
Wth.... double post.

Ace Lightning: Priestessacelightning on February 27th, 2007 05:36 am (UTC)
what if the tomb they found was the one Jesus' body was placed into when they took him down off the cross - the tomb he supposedly rose from? that would be one way to keep the myth of the Resurrection, even in the face of this new discovery.

i rather like Voltaire's take on the story. he apparently has a young son (i don't know what Voltaire's current marital status is), and one spring, after seeing all the decorations, and talking with other kids, he said, "Daddy, what's Easter?"
"Well... remember I told you about Jesus, and how he was executed for preaching what he believed in? Well, Easter is the day that Christians celebrate three days later, when, according to their beliefs, he arose from the grave..."
and the kid got wide-eyed, and with a big grin he said, "You mean Jesus was a ZOMBIE?! Yeah!"

Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on February 27th, 2007 12:59 pm (UTC)
Ace, that's precisely what would kill the myth. Jesus' body was supposedly not to be found in the tomb where they laid him after taking him down off the cross. If it's there now, then either there WAS no resurrection or, as gridlore suggests, he got up, lived his life a while longer, and then was later buried in this tomb after he died... again, I suppose.
Ace Lightning: Priestessacelightning on February 27th, 2007 01:04 pm (UTC)
what i meant was, they laid him in that coffin, and he got up out of it. later, they put the other coffins with it (or it with the others), maybe for sentimental reasons. he would't have had to have been actually buried in the coffin permanently.

Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on February 27th, 2007 01:20 pm (UTC)
Ace, what you're saying isn't any different. Their story provides that there was a tomb, one that he is no longer to be found in. The filmmakers are saying, "Here he is, here's his body." They're saying he had a son, too, which is also damning to traditional Crosstianity, but worst of all, there is a body they believe to be that of Jesus. Do you see what I'm saying?
Ace Lightning: pentaacelightning on February 27th, 2007 01:33 pm (UTC)
the article isn't clear about whether they found actual remains in the box marked "Yeshua ben Yosef", or just found the box. if they did find human remains, then you're correct. but if all they found was some stains, even stains that turned out to have traces of human DNA in them - well, what would you expect of a box where an injured, bleeding man lay for three days? basically, unless they discovered evidence of flesh and bone, and can establish conclusively that this was the correct Yeshua, Maryam, etc., the Christians could still keep their core myth. otherwise... "Easter's been canceled - they found the body."

(Deleted comment)
Ace Lightning: books01acelightning on February 27th, 2007 01:46 pm (UTC)
if that's the case, it wouldn't have been the tomb he was placed in after they took him down off the cross. then it becomes a matter of proving that it was, indeed, that Yeshua... but how can they do that? i mean, someone might find a tweed deerstalker cap in a house in the right part of London, and even determine scientifically that the cap had been made during the Victorian era, and had been worn by a man... but it could never be proved that the hat once belonged to Sherlock Holmes, which would then prove that Holmes actually existed, and therefore all the stories are literally true. that's where this whole publicity stunt falls down.