Newsweek and the Washington Post have a weekly "discussion" feature called "On Faith," that explores a different question about faith each week.
The question posted online this week:
If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity?
Now, keep in mind a new poll shows some 75 percent of Americans who don't label themselves born-again Christians believe in the physical resurrection of Christ.
Of course, don't expect Newsweek's panel to mirror the public at large. It appears that more than half the panelists in this discussion don't personally believe in the physical resurrection of Christ.
Among the 17 panelists, there were two Muslims advancing Islam's view of Christ, seven other panelists who either denied the physical resurrection of Christ or offered a squishy liberal theology of resurrection as more than "something spectacular happening to Jesus' corpse" and only four (including MRC 20th Anniversary Gala emcee Cal Thomas) who gave a defense of the physical resurrection as the cornerstone of Christian theology.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
let's see a panel on Muhammed
April 7, 2007 - 18:28 ET by Pragmatic-ManLet's wait and see Newsweak and the ComPost put together a panel to discuss whether Muhammed actually participated in the Battle of Badr, or just directed his band of militants from the sidelines. The Battle of Badr was the first jihad, perpetrated against a Quraysh caravan for the purpose of stealing the goods and killing the tribesmen. Think it will happen? Imagine, an open discussion among the media about the thuggish behavior of the prophet of Islam.
P-Man...you can start holdi
April 8, 2007 - 05:39 ET by motherbeltP-Man...you can start holding your breath now ;-)
This is like saying "what if you found out that the whole basis of what you believe never happened?"
St. Paul said "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith..." The Secular Progressives would like nothing better than to destroy the basis of Christianity. Then the state can be the ultimate arbiter of morality.
This isn't a religious websit
April 7, 2007 - 18:42 ET by KC MulvilleThis isn't a religious website, and the Jesuits on the panel express my view better than I could, so I'll leave that discussion for some more appropriate forum.
What strikes me, though, is that this question comes so soon after the recent debacle where the Oscar-winning director James Cameron claimed to have found Jesus' bones. The subliminal message of that documentary is that science had disproved Christianity. (Fortunately, the overwhelming reaction to that fraud was that it didn't prove anything.) This discussion topic in the Washington Post and Newsweek asks whether Christians would accept a "scientifically-verified fact," if ever found, as proof. In essence, the discussion wants to see whether Christians are "reasonable" people, where "reason" is defined as acceptance of the superiority of science.
I reject the premise that science and religion contradict one another, or that science is superior. Those are, in my view, poor ways of understanding what science and religion are about.
KC
April 7, 2007 - 18:50 ET by gfrrmanKC, I find it rather convenient that that whole story about "Jesus' Bones" just up and died as quickly as it started. Wonder why that happene? Was there ANY follow up? If there was I missed it!! Hmmmmmmm.
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
I honestly think that the sci
April 7, 2007 - 19:10 ET by KC MulvilleI honestly think that the scientists themselves decided that the documentary didn't offer proof. It was mere speculation accelerated by sensationalism. And it didn't help when we all found out that the same story had already been slammed a decade before, so the breathless "discoveries" became embarrassments. Media people, like most of us, don't follow up their own embarrassments.
The MSM isn't equipped to handle these topics with any depth. The MSM wants to use airtime and column-space for advertisements, not long treatises and reflections. They are, after all, in it for profit, and there's nothing wrong with that. But, for exactly that reason, if they aren't going to address the topic properly, they should leave it alone. And they especially shouldn't stage sensationalistic documentaries that only insult believers.
God has given us His general
April 7, 2007 - 19:40 ET byGod has given us His general revelation in the creation and His specific revelation in the Scriptures. He does not contradict himself. If there seems to be contradiction then our interpretation of one or the other (or both) is incorrect. (science or hermenutic)
As for the quick drop of the stories, i believe that true scholars who have known of these ossuaries for sometime were able to show that the interpretations of the inscriptions were bogus.
For those who believe, no e
April 8, 2007 - 05:42 ET by motherbeltFor those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.---Anonymous
Happy Easter, everyone!
are you refering to GW? as
April 8, 2007 - 08:35 ET byare you refering to GW? as for my faith, we are told to be ready to give reasons for the hope that is within you.
We should all be ready to listen and establish the truth for if Christ be not raised then are we most to be pitied.
Finially where this anonymous quote true then no one would ever change their mind which is simply not true
botg--I was referring to th
April 8, 2007 - 14:34 ET by motherbeltbotg--I was referring to the Resurrection.
And I do believe the quote is true. When someone who doesn't believe in the Resurrection changes his mind and believes, it is not due to any explanation, it is due to faith, pure and simple. Faith is what enables us to believe what cannot be explained. Or do you think there is a rational explanation for the Resurrection that can convince nonbelievers that it happened?
What you describe is a true p
April 8, 2007 - 14:44 ET byWhat you describe is a true path for many and none come unless the Father first call them. But we do deal in a reasonable faith. Check, Simon Greenleaf, Lee Strobel, Greg Koukel, and many others who needed logical grounding before taking the step.
Jesus Christ is Lord, and He
April 7, 2007 - 21:38 ET byJesus Christ is Lord, and He has risen. <<< This really bugs the hell-bound. I say, let's shout it from the roof tops and see if we can bug the hell right out of some of them!
:o)
Just because the hype for Cam
April 7, 2007 - 22:54 ET by tracheostomyJust because the hype for Cameron's film has worn down doesn't mean it's not over. Don't forget that the when 9/11 Conspiracy nuts first surfaced in the media, they too subsided for awhile. . .until they got their backing from Hollywood actors who believed it.
I think the same thing will happen with the Cameron movie.
-PJ
I am John Doe!
true the same old recycled we
April 8, 2007 - 08:42 ET bytrue the same old recycled weak arguements
The 911 "nuts" were
April 8, 2007 - 17:06 ET by M J BThe 911 "nuts" were subject to science which has effectively destroyed their case. Is Christianity willing to be scrutinized by science? I think not.
if by science you mean a pre-
April 8, 2007 - 17:27 ET byif by science you mean a pre-determined absolute dogma of materialism then the answer is no. If you mean a methodology of theory, experiment, evaluate, revise, etc. and go where the evidence leads then Christianity has no qualms with scientific investigation. Christianity rests on evidence. The empty tomb is one such piece. Just be careful not to substitute the definitions back and forth as you reason it out.
Live long and prosper
April 8, 2007 - 16:38 ET by nkviking75Next week: If Mr. Spock beamed down from the starship Enterprise, how would that change your view of the universe?
Hey, the two events are equally likely!