If Jesus' bones were found and fully documented as such, it should make NO difference to Christian believers. Since that would be NO proof that He wasn't *spiritually* resurrected into His new REDEEMED body.
2007-07-16 11:54:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
It would probably be a negative as so many Christians would beat their drum more obnoxiously about the validity of their faith.
Even most atheists, Jews, and Muslims will acknowledge that a man named Jesus once walked the Earth, the doubt they all share is that he was the son of God.
2007-07-16 11:54:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by ©2009 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The proven of bone of christ is only that christ has died somehow and it does not mean Jesus not christ as he coded anyone who sacrified himself for doing something good to people, is called the son of god. The son of god is not a blood issue, is the honor issue. The bone I will not pay for because I got no use at all.
2007-07-16 11:59:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by johnkamfailee 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Where does it say that in the Bible? It doesn't. But as for all the anti-Christian hypothetical scenarios, seems to me there is sufficient proof already of Jesus' resurrection that the burden of proof is now on the anti-Christians who characteristically make up fairtales while hypocritically accusing Christians of doing so.
2007-07-16 12:11:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by Steve Amato 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Your question is an oxymoron. If some bones were found then by very definition they could not belong to the character in the bible.
Believers would say someone who left his bones lying around couldn't possibly be Jesus.
I would say that if anybody left their bones lying around, they must have been real, so obviously they weren't Jesus.
2007-07-16 11:55:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by Citizen Justin 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Dude..that would so TOTALLY crush the Christian religion. Cause in the Bible. It says that he raised from the dead. That when people went to check on his body. They only found the cloths that wrapped his body there. So if they found bones of Jesus Christ. That would certainly be something the church would take great strides to hide.
2007-07-16 11:53:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
the bible was changed around a lot during it's years. so, i mean...jesus MAY have never done that. he probably was a real fella who did meraculous things for people.
being a person who has christian beliefs, i think that it's a positive thing.
so many christians act as though they were there when jesus was alive and get SO testy whenever anyone suggests something different than what they were originally taught.
2007-07-16 11:55:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by :) 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
When did it say the last part, oh saintly one? LOL, Are you making this up?
I would still pray to Christ instead of Mary because Jesus was the one that died, not Mary. I
I still think you are making the last part up, that makes no sense why anyone in the year 100 AD would write about the moon......I think you are full of doo doo......
2007-07-16 11:54:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by kaliroadrager 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Hahah It would be like when they found Freddy Kruegers bones in the car junk yard and they got up and hit the guy with the shovel and laughed. That was great.
2007-07-16 11:57:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Proving any bones to be those of Jesus would be like proving a piece of wood was from the true cross.
Can't be done.
Just because you have no faith, though, you shouldn't be insulting towards the beliefs of others. It is a juvenile and empty headed thing to do.
2007-07-16 11:54:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by Gaspode 7
·
1⤊
1⤋