that is called being deceived and the Bible talks about those who have not accepted Jesus that they walk in deception...like have a veil over their eyes ...my translation not the Bibles.
2007-03-06 05:30:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by shiningon 6
·
2⤊
6⤋
Once again. I don't think the case was strong enough to say it was or wasn't. The show afterwards pointed out thing that should be done but presented absolutely no evidence refuting the case. Only pointed to holes that need to be filled.
If they took the actual bones, completely mapped the relationships of everyone in the tomb, and they all lined up the way that the guys were saying it would, the case would be a slam dunk that they had the right family because the odds of it happening that exact way twice would be astronomical. If they do not then you would have the answer.
I personally am skeptical that they would, but it is possible.
2007-03-06 05:36:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
First of all, you have claimed that atheists do not exist. Why are you addressing questions to them then?
Next up, why do you believe that all atheists believe that the Jesus tomb story is real? Most atheists are skeptical by nature. They want to see proof of claims. I don't see much proof in this story yet. I say, let the researchers hash it out for a while and see what comes of it.
2007-03-06 06:36:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by A.Mercer 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I never ever said I didnt believe he lived I dont believe he was the son of god but Im pretty sure he lived. Since this is the case you would be wise to remember that Jesus lived a Jewish life and for him to remain unmarried and childless was VERY unusual and I would not be surprised if he did marry.
2007-03-06 05:55:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by elaeblue 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Just because we were having some fun with the concept of Jesus Bones does not mean we believe that they are literally the bones of Jesus. We believe in verifiable evidence, the bones are not verifiable.
2007-03-06 05:33:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Murazor 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
I don't.
Some acknowledge that Jesus could have existed, just not as the son of God.
And there is at least evidence to be considered when making a determination about the tomb.
AND clearly you didn't watch the show, as the bones have been buried and were not included in the docudrama.
2007-03-06 05:32:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
maximum atheists i be attentive to are very skeptical correct to the tomb tale, which includes on my e-lists and at YA. they want greater info than that. as properly, there is already an abundance of Christian media claiming that "the Gospel" is real.
2016-12-14 12:16:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not all atheists think they are Jesus' bones. I don't.
But anyway, you can still be an atheist and believe that Jesus was a man that walked the earth. Atheism just means you don't believe in god. Some of us think there really was a man named Jesus who lead his followers. We just don't think he was the son of god.
2007-03-06 05:29:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by glitterkittyy 7
·
6⤊
1⤋
Atheists don't deny that Jesus existed........He was just a MAN though.
I feel like I've written this sentence 100 times...oh yeah that's because I have.
Maybe you should do some research on what an Atheist actually thinks.
2007-03-06 05:31:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by photogrl262000 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Generalize much? As I said in a couple of the hundreds of questions about this:
"I'm an atheist, myself, and even I personally find it odd that they didn't any dating tests to find out whether or not any of these remains were old enough to be any of the people they suspect. That would be the first test I would do, why wasn't it theirs?"
As much as I don't like the idea of agreeing with you, in order to be honest with myself, I have to, unless they can come up with some better evidence.
2007-03-06 05:34:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by The Resurrectionist 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Believing they a person named Jesus existed in a religious realm and that he was divine are to very different things. Either way, it was a poorly made documentary who took variants of biblical names used from such a wide span of books, it was rather harsh to watch.
2007-03-06 05:31:29
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋