# Did Anyone Watch It??



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 5, 2007)

Did anyone watch the "lost tomb" last night? I started too but just couldn't bring myself to sit through it. I did however record the critical look show that came on after it for review at a later time. Wondering if anyone had any thoughts about.


----------



## etexas (Mar 5, 2007)

Sorry James, Megan and I could not sit through it either.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 5, 2007)

Unfortunately I watched Taledega Nights and Ricky Bobby was probably every bit as blasphemous as the other mess.


----------



## bwsmith (Mar 5, 2007)

My husband and I did -- it was a great venue for selling boring advertising. The discussion following was great -- Ted Koppel was his usual pedantic self -- and that in itself brought out the shoddiness of the film maker’s motives. 

People will go to great lengths to revile Christ, and try to squirm away from His rule.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 5, 2007)

I watched it. It was the same old stuff that has been rehashed and refutted for the past 2000 years. The discussion afterwards was interesting. The two archeological experts ripped the show to pieces. One called the show "archeological ****".


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 5, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> I watched it. It was the same old stuff that has been rehashed and refutted for the past 2000 years. The discussion afterwards was interesting. The two archeological experts ripped the show to pieces. One called the show "archeological ****".



That's the part I recorded. I'm going to try and watch it tonight.


----------



## Redaimie (Mar 5, 2007)

bwsmith said:


> The discussion following was great -- Ted Koppel was his usual pedantic self -- and that in itself brought out the shoddiness of the film maker’s motives.




The discussion afterwards was very interesting especially the question, "if" it were true, would it destroy your faith. The priest's answer surprised me he said no because he didn't see it necessary to believe in a "physical resurrection". He affirmed the creeds but denied the necessity for a physical bodily resurrection. I found that quite shocking.

I thought Koppel summed it up quite well, he basically said it wasn't Christianity that would be proven wrong because "Christianity" has impacted every aspect of our lives including the lives of those who don't believe so the evidence they found needed much more proof than what they had to offer.


----------



## bwsmith (Mar 5, 2007)

Redaimie said:


> The discussion afterwards was very interesting especially the question, "if" it were true, would it destroy your faith. The priest's answer surprised me he said no because he didn't see it necessary to believe in a "physical resurrection". He affirmed the creeds but denied the necessity for a physical bodily resurrection. I found that quite shocking.
> 
> I thought Koppel summed it up quite well, he basically said it wasn't Christianity that would be proven wrong because "Christianity" has impacted every aspect of our lives including the lives of those who don't believe so the evidence they found needed much more proof than what they had to offer.




As a new Christian, while visiting the National Presbyterian church in DC, I heard a minister from a PCUSA church in NY say the literal resurrection was not the point of the Christian faith – it didn’t matter where the Lord’s body was . . . 
I also heard the priest say his faith couldn’t be shaken for it was handed down to him from the church –


----------



## bwsmith (Mar 5, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> I watched it. It was the same old stuff that has been rehashed and refutted for the past 2000 years. The discussion afterwards was interesting. The two archeological experts ripped the show to pieces. One called the show "archeological ****".





Indeed "acheological" it was . . . 

NOT!


The film raised more questions about the methods used than it answered -- and it reminded me that we need to know what Scripture says, and does not say!

I also sense that there were many more "caveats" on the cutting floor than we will ever know!


----------



## Magma2 (Mar 5, 2007)

I didn't watch it either, although I did catch some of the discussion with Koppel after the show. Seemed to me much ado about nothing. Andy Webb over on the Warfield list has a good sermon in response (http://www.sermonaudio.com/play.asp?ID=35071320&sourceID=providencepca). Here's just a bit from the transcript: 



> Now in the evidence against the Lost Tomb Category, I could go on all day. Let me give you just a
> few.
> 
> • 1) The tomb itself was not secret it was ornamented, prominent, and would have been well known. If the Jews had know where Jesus’ family plot was they would have dragged out his ossuary every time the Apostle’s preached. The Apostles would have been the laughing stock
> ...



As far as I recall from the post show discussion, none of Andy's 9 points were answered.


----------



## Magma2 (Mar 5, 2007)

bwsmith said:


> I also heard the priest say his faith couldn’t be shaken for it was handed down to him from the church –



I heard a priest say the same thing last night during the post show discussion. At least Andy Webb above admitted he'd immediately get out of the preaching business if it were true. More proof that Roman Catholics are unaffected by truth, and, frankly, why should they be?


----------



## bwsmith (Mar 5, 2007)

Magma2 said:


> I heard a priest say the same thing last night during the post show discussion. At least Andy Webb above admitted he'd immediately get out of the preaching business if it were true. More proof that Roman Catholics are unaffected by truth, and, frankly, why should they be?



Roman Catholics whose hearts are won by God do respond to truth -- and are affected by a loving outreach -- RC's are not more lost than many Protestants I have seen.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 5, 2007)

Is anyone else tired at nausium by how Hollywood, the press, "science", and best selling fiction writers milk this tired yarn?

How many secret society Mason/Knights Templar tales can you tell. What a tired and unorginal subject matter, they always find a way to blasphemy Christ by proclaiming him an enlightened teacher who others misinterpreted.

I'm reading a new fiction adventure called "Napoleon's Pyramids" which started off fun and exciting and then dove into blasphemous absurdity when one character who is a Mason proclaims that Jesus knew ancient mason wisdom as did all the great teachers in Muhammad, Budda, Plato.

I haven't read any more of the story, it completely took me out of the book with such sacreligious unoriginality.


----------



## Magma2 (Mar 5, 2007)

bwsmith said:


> Roman Catholics whose hearts are won by God do respond to truth -- and are affected by a loving outreach -- RC's are not more lost than many Protestants I have seen.



While I would agree that hypocrisy is nondenominational, if an RC has his heart won by God and responds to the truth, please explain to me how such a person can remain an RC? It seems to me what you're describing is someone who might come to the truth in spite of and not because of Roman Catholic teaching. Roman Catholicism is not Christianity and I'm surprised anyone here would actually confuse the two? It's as unbelievable as Jesus' tomb.


----------



## etexas (Mar 5, 2007)

bwsmith said:


> Roman Catholics whose hearts are won by God do respond to truth -- and are affected by a loving outreach -- RC's are not more lost than many Protestants I have seen.


Amen.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 5, 2007)

There was a fairly good article in our newspaper refuting the Lost Tomb. But even some of the things that were claimed in that article, about archaeology and analysis, weren't what we should consider "scientific". Daniel Kok makes a good observation about "science" in another thread, which I think applies well. 

There really is nothing to this Lost Tomb thing except money. As the article in our newspaper said: if its archaeology, then it would have been brought out in an archaeology venue, but instead it is brought out in a popular money-making venue. It's like it wants to ride on the heels of Mel Gibson's and Madonna's fame, through controversy with Christianity.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 5, 2007)

JohnV said:


> There was a fairly good article in our newspaper refuting the Lost Tomb. But even some of the things that were claimed in that article, about archaeology and analysis, weren't what we should consider "scientific". Daniel Kok makes a good observation about "science" in another thread, which I think applies well.
> 
> There really is nothing to this Lost Tomb thing except money. As the article in our newspaper said: if its archaeology, then it would have been brought out in an archaeology venue, but instead it is brought out in a popular money-making venue. It's like it wants to ride on the heels of Mel Gibson's and Madonna's fame, through controversy with Christianity.


What is extra irritating is that the title of the "documentary" already has the presumption that it is indeed the tomb of Jesus Christ.

It calls it the lost tomb of Jesus. More honorable journalism/ filmmaking would have titled along the lines of "Invesigating Claims of a Jesus Tomb."

Just not as hair raising I guess.


----------



## bwsmith (Mar 5, 2007)

Magma2 said:


> While I would agree that hypocrisy is nondenominational, if an RC has his heart won by God and responds to the truth, please explain to me how such a person can remain an RC? It seems to me what you're describing is someone who might come to the truth in spite of and not because of Roman Catholic teaching. Roman Catholicism is not Christianity and I'm surprised anyone here would actually confuse the two? It's as unbelievable as Jesus' tomb.



God has given me the privilege of knowing RC-s who love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ – and as yet, He hasn’t moved them out of their local parish. 

HE has also shown me how He woos RC’s into a better place to worship Him. 

I believe RC -ism is like many of the churches cited in Revelation 2-3 – with badly stopped up ears – ears that are as waxy as liberals are wobbly, and some five-pointers are rigid.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 5, 2007)

bwsmith said:


> God has given me the privilege of knowing RC-s who love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ – and as yet, He hasn’t moved them out of their local parish.
> 
> HE has also shown me how He woos RC’s into a better place to worship Him.
> 
> I believe RC -ism is like many of the churches cited in Revelation 2-3 – with badly stopped up ears – ears that are as waxy as liberals are wobbly, and some five-pointers are rigid.


Agreed, we are sometimes quite smarmy in our approach to the non-reformed.


----------



## Magma2 (Mar 5, 2007)

bwsmith said:


> God has given me the privilege of knowing RC-s who love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ – and as yet, He hasn’t moved them out of their local parish.
> 
> HE has also shown me how He woos RC’s into a better place to worship Him.
> 
> I believe RC -ism is like many of the churches cited in Revelation 2-3 – with badly stopped up ears – ears that are as waxy as liberals are wobbly, and some five-pointers are rigid.



Sorry to disappoint, but Romanism is a thoroughly apostate and false church and nothing more than a soul destroying cult aping the Christian faith. Your warm and glowing relationship with papists who "love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ" notwithstanding. BTW, which Christ do they love and serve, who, as yet, hasn’t moved them out of their local parish? Could it be the same Christ who said; "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty"? Just wondering?


BTW your deprecation of the biblical and Reformed faith didn't go unnoticed. 

To think I've just met you and already learned more than what the supposedly uncovered in Jesus' tomb.


----------



## Magma2 (Mar 5, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Agreed, we are sometimes quite smarmy in our approach to the non-reformed.



Non-Reformed? That's the least of Rome's problems. Perhaps you're not talking about the church Luther called a slaughterhouse of souls? Perhaps it's one of your own imagination? Seems to me there is a lot of wishful thinking going on here as well as on TV.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 5, 2007)

Magma2 said:


> Non-Reformed? That's the least of Rome's problems. Perhaps you're not talking about the church Luther called a slaughterhouse of souls? Perhaps it's one of your own imagination? Seems to me there is a lot of wishful thinking going on here as well as on TV.


To be Christian and Catholic does seem a contradiction however one can be Catholic or Arminian out of ignorance and still have a God given faith and trust of Jesus Christ for salvation.

Grace will guide them out of the darkness of ignorance in time, prayerfully.


----------



## Magma2 (Mar 5, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> To be Christian and Catholic does seem a contradiction however one can be Catholic or Arminian out of ignorance and still have a God given faith and trust of Jesus Christ for salvation.
> 
> Grace will guide them out of the darkness of ignorance in time, prayerfully.



Whereas I would agree that it's theoretically possible to be a Christian in spite of the best efforts of Rome and her prelates (I said as much above), that is far cry from the small tangential point at hand. It is impossible for someone to be both a Roman Catholic and a Christian. It is possible for a Christian to be under RC teaching for a time, but if bw knows such people, the biblical response would not be "peace to you brother," but rather come out from her. Nothing "smarmy" about that.

My point as it relates to the priest who responded to the Tomb broadcast is that no one should expect a priest to believe the truth much less defend it. The Roman religion ought not to be confused with the Christian religion even if Ted Koppel can't tell them apart. As a matter of fact, the system of doctrine taught by Rome is antithetical and openly hostile to the Christian faith _at every point_ as anyone reading its official teachings would quickly realize.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 5, 2007)

Magma2 said:


> Whereas I would agree that it's theoretically possible to be a Christian in spite of the best efforts of Rome and her prelates (I said as much above), that is far cry from the small tangential point at hand. It is impossible for someone to be both a Roman Catholic and a Christian. It is possible for a Christian to be under RC teaching for a time, but if bw knows such people, the biblical response would not be "peace to you brother," but rather come out from her. Nothing "smarmy" about that.
> 
> My point as it relates to the priest who responded to the Tomb broadcast is that no one should expect a priest to believe the truth much less defend it. The Roman religion ought not to be confused with the Christian religion even if Ted Koppel can't tell them apart. As a matter of fact, the system of doctrine taught by Rome is antithetical and openly hostile to the Christian faith _at every point_ as anyone reading its official teachings would quickly realize.


Priests and sheep are two separate things. The priest in his studies has chosen to be an ardent God hater if he embraces the Vatican because he has no ignorance to claim.

Just as the Open Theist, although perhaps the logical conclusion of Arminian thought, has devised a way to justify his hatred of the gospel because ignorance does not make one an Open Theist, clawing for a way to deny the gospel does.

A man who grew up in a Cathedral and went to confession but trusted Christ alone for his salvation and studied the scriptures on His own apart from the lense of the bishops would be a Christian brother.


----------



## etexas (Mar 6, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Priests and sheep are two separate things. The priest in his studies has chosen to be an ardent God hater if he embraces the Vatican because he has no ignorance to claim.
> 
> Just as the Open Theist, although perhaps the logical conclusion of Arminian thought, has devised a way to justify his hatred of the gospel because ignorance does not make one an Open Theist, clawing for a way to deny the gospel does.
> 
> A man who grew up in a Cathedral and went to confession but trusted Christ alone for his salvation and studied the scriptures on His own apart from the lense of the bishops would be a Christian brother.


A devout pastor once told me some Roman Catholics are saved in spite of the RC Church through the work of the Holy Ghost. I agree, I was in Brazil and met a number of Catholics who hold a very simple faith in Christ......a few told me salvation came through Faith in Christ Jesus, they do not really follow or even understand most of the "Roman logic" lobbed at them.....so they cling to a simple faith in Christ Jesus. I say simple, they are not stupid! They simply work to live, theology is not something they delve into, hence a simple faith in Jesus Christ.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 6, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> A devout pastor once told me some Roman Catholics are saved in spite of the RC Church through the work of the Holy Ghost. I agree, I was in Brazil and met a number of Catholics who hold a very simple faith in Christ......a few told me salvation came through Faith in Christ Jesus, they do not really follow or even understand most of the "Roman logic" lobbed at them.....so they cling to a simple faith in Christ Jesus. I say simple, they are not stupid! They simply work to live, theology is not something they delve into, hence a simple faith in Jesus Christ.


I spent two years of my childhood in Brazil, I was a heathen at age five (just ask my parents) but I digress. 

Brazil is heart wrenching, voodoo mixed with Catholicism, superstition galore.
Rio is the Latin Amsterdam.

We went to a Baptist church at the time, Chick Fil 'A sent missionaries to Brazil and started a Baptist church there.

I cannot vouch for the man's theology for I have no recollection of it except to say he was concerned that my mother had been sprinkled instead of dunked and therefore not truly baptized and he was concerned for her...that's probably all you need to know to figure out most of the rest.

Brazil needs missionaries badly.


----------



## etexas (Mar 6, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> I spent two years of my childhood in Brazil, I was a heathen at age five (just ask my parents) but I digress.
> 
> Brazil is heart wrenching, voodoo mixed with Catholicism, superstition galore.
> Rio is the Latin Amsterdam.
> ...


I quite agree with you! I was not defending the RC just God's Grace and Election and how in circumstances I believe God can save despite that system.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 6, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> I quite agree with you! I was not defending the RC just God's Grace and Election and how in circumstances I believe God can save despite that system.


You didn't know me at five! 

But seriousy, yeah I didn't think you agreed with Rome nor did I seek to insinuate that you did.

It is all about the grace, as that great theologian Alice Cooper once said "I wanna be elected, selected, collected. Yes I wanna be elected!"


----------

