Christians are too embarassed

"First of all, this could not 'disprove Christianity.' It is not a fact, its a pursuit of an idea, organized by someone who WANTS do 'disprove Christianity.' Were something like this found to be fact, the ONLY cause it might have on Christianity, is that Christianity might be changed, not dis proven. "

The central tenet of Christian faith is Jesus' resurrection. Without the resurrection it all falls apart.

"Because I live, ye shall live also" (John 14:19)
"Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By His great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Pt 1:3)
"Jesus was put to the death for our trespasses and raised for our justification" (Rm 4:25)

Here's a Catholic News Agency article about the Pope talking about the necessity of the resurrection:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14122

With the discovery of the bones of Christ, you disprove his divinity, his sacrifice, and show that all that came after - the appearances, the Great Commission, etc. - was fabricated. The claim by Jesus that he could destroy "the Temple" and rebuild it in 3 days goes unfulfilled, hence his divinity must be rejected - and with that the Trinity, etc., etc. etc.

You say it would be changed? At best, it'd be changed back to Judaism. :-)


"Second of all, you make a fool of yourself, because you don't realize the man making this case for the 'truth about Jesus' is a Jewish man. He believes in the God that you are trying to slam. So again, this has nothing to do with disproving Christianity."

Your bringing up Jacobovici's religion also has nothing to do with disproving Christianity, and the original author hasn't made a fool of himself. You're putting out emotional responses and insults and confusing them with facts and points. You don't have one coherent point in your entire post.


"No Christians would be 'embarassed' by it."

Speak for yourself. Most people would be embarrassed to have believed something, without proof, that turned out not to be true. They'd be more embarrassed if a
2000-year-old coverup occurred to deny the primacy of a woman in the Jesus movement and the fact that their leader had a son.

"Christianity has been a driving force behind nations since the time of the Roman Empire and earlier".

Um... not earlier. Israel was occupied by the Romans during Jesus' lifetime. And many people are quite embarrassed by the ways in which Christianity was a driving force behind nations - wars, persecutions, condoning of slavery, etc.

"Many people are proclaimed Christians or at least practice some small belief int he existence of God or a different god. Nobody has anything to be embarrassed for."

Let's try this again - if you believe something that turns out not to be true, you should probably be embarrassed, regardless of how many others thought it too. If you had no good reason to believe that thing in the first place, you should definitely be embarrassed. If you believed something as scientifically impossible as a man rising from the dead and then find out you were wrong, you should really be embarrassed.

" But that does not even matter as this discovery, were it ever found to be true, would just bring people to a realization that mis-communications occurred through thousands of years of translations and moving-around-of texts. "

The white-washing begins already. :-) Miscommunications? You mean the crafting and peddling of fiction, if Jesus' body was removed by followers from the tomb and never rose (he'd have had to been bones before he'd have been put in an ossuary). Every word that follows the account of the crucifixition is not a "mis-translation". The preaching of a resurrected Christ by the earliest Apostles wasn't a mis-translation over thousands of years - that's what they were preaching at the time. Are you serious? Do you understand anything about how the scriptures were formed, how a council chose what would be authoritative, how doctrinal battles shaped these selections, the many, many different takes on Christianity that existed before it gained state religion status and the persecutions that followed to form the one "consensus" view of Christianity, etc?


"The opponents of religion like to make a claim that The Bible (as well as the holy books of other religions) was developed merely by men, and most likely heavily altered over the last couple thousand years. Therefore anyone who agrees with that statement has no choice but to admit that it is possible that certain information regarding Jesus had also been altered or left out. "


You state that the opponents of religion claim this (as well as all scholars, of course). You don't state that the power brokers of the major sects of Christianity don't claim this, and it would be a crushing blow to have the authoritativeness of the Gospel accounts undeniably disproven. It's not that something was altered or left out that's the issue. It's that THE CORE TENET OF CHRISTIANITY could have been altered that's the cause of controversy.

"Nearly every part of your comment is incorrect and half-brained at most."

Sorry, that can more aptly be said about you.

" I have heard Christians from many various areas announce a change in their own beliefs, or a discovery of a greater logic, while stilling holding to their beliefs. Again, this case in no way could, or AIMS, to disprove Christianity or any religion in general. Christians WOULD admit they were wrong, although they would never have to, because like I said, this situation would only point to miscommunicated texts, not the falsity of a religion. "

If Jesus was just a nice man who died, how does that not falsify Christianity? To use your own words, thanks for trying! Attempt to rebut others' arguments once you have some actual theological scholarship under your belt. You don't appear to understand major Roman, Orthodox or Protestant Christian theology, much less the history of their formation and the early Church from Christ's death to the years proceeding Constantine's making it the state religion.

Excellent answer.

And also the OP forgets that about a hundred years ago, there was a big movement within Christianity to "let go" of miraculous claims like the bodily resurrection of Jesus, known as "modernism" (or "theological liberalism"), which, to varying degrees, still has pull with many mainline Christians (though at this point one might begin to dispute whether they are truly "Christian" anymore). Look at someone like retired bishop John Shelby Spong.

So to these "liberals" something like the Lost Tomb of Jesus being "true" would to them be a relief, if not a "God send."

The idea that it's been rejected just because of fundamentalist dogmatism couldn't be more wrong. Besides, according to the "hard headed fundie" mythos, even if it were true, what makes them think such people would put any stock in such a program if their "faith" is unshakable by "facts"?


http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.com/
History vs. the Da Vinci Code