Jesus' Bones?

[LV426]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070226/ap_on_en_tv/jesus_s_burial;_ylt= Aq7qc7rtHGkqUxAL7SLh ey9vzwcF

Filmmakers speak about Jesus documentary

By KAREN MATTHEWS, Associated Press Writer 39 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Filmmakers and scholars on Monday unveiled two stone ossuaries they said could have contained the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, but several other scholars derided claims in a new documentary as unfounded and contradictory to basic Christian beliefs.


"The Lost Tomb of Jesus," produced by Oscar-winning director
James Cameron and airing on the Discovery Channel on March 4, argues that 10 ancient ossuaries — small caskets used to store bones — discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem in 1980 may have contained the bones of Jesus and his family.

One of the caskets bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son, according to the film. The very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

"There's a definite sense that you have to pinch yourself, that what you're doing, that email you just sent, is real," Cameron said at Monday's news conference. He told NBC'S "Today" show earlier Monday that statisticians found "in the range of a couple of million to one" the likelihood of that grouping of names appearing together on ossuaries in one place.

Simcha Jacobovici, the Toronto filmmaker who directed the documentary, said that a name of one of the ossuaries — "Mariamene" — is a major support to the argument that the tomb is that of Jesus and his family. In early Christian texts, "Mariamene" is the name of Mary Magdalene, he said.

Most Christians believe Jesus' body spent three days at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem's Old City. The burial site identified in Cameron's documentary is in a southern Jerusalem neighborhood nowhere near the church.

In 1996, when the British Broadcasting Corp. aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.

"They just want to get money for it," Kloner said.

Shimon Gibson, one of three archaeologists who first discovered the tomb in 1980, said Monday of the film's claims: "I'm skeptical, but that's the way I am. I'm willing to accept the possibility."

The film's claims, however, have raised the ire of Christian leaders in the Holy Land.

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight.

"I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," Pfann said. "But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."

"How possible is it?" Pfann said. "On a scale of one through 10 — 10 being completely possible — it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half."

Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun." Ancient Semitic script is notoriously difficult to decipher.

Kloner also said the filmmakers' assertions are false. "The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time," he said.

William Dever, an expert on near eastern archaeology and anthropology, who has worked with Israeli archeologists for five decades, said specialists have known about the ossuaries for years.

"The fact that it's been ignored tells you something," said Dever, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. "It would be amusing if it didn't mislead so many people."

Osnat Goaz, a spokeswoman for the Israeli government agency responsible for archaeology, said the Antiquities Authority agreed to send two ossuaries to New York, but they did not contain human remains. "We agreed to send the ossuaries, but it doesn't mean that we agree with" the filmmakers, she said.

[LV426]

Scholars, clergy slam Jesus documentary

By MARSHALL THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 17 minutes ago

JERUSALEM - Archaeologists and clergymen in the Holy Land derided claims in a new documentary produced by James Cameron that contradict major Christian tenets, but the Oscar-winning director said the evidence was based on sound statistics.


"The Lost Tomb of Jesus," which the Discovery Channel will run on March 4, argues that 10 ancient ossuaries — small caskets used to store bones — discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem in 1980 may have contained the bones of Jesus and his family, according to a press release issued by the Discovery Channel.

One of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son, according to the documentary. And the very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Cameron told NBC'S "Today" show that statisticians found "in the range of a couple of million to one in favor of it being them." Simcha Jacobovici, the Toronto filmmaker who directed the documentary, said the implications "are huge."

"But they're not necessarily the implications people think they are. For example, some believers are going to say, well this challenges the resurrection. I don't know why, if Jesus rose from one tomb, he couldn't have risen from the other tomb," Jacobovici told "Today."

Most Christians believe Jesus' body spent three days at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem's Old City. The burial site identified in Cameron's documentary is in a southern Jerusalem neighborhood nowhere near the church.

In 1996, when the British Broadcasting Corp. aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.

"They just want to get money for it," Kloner said.

Cameron said his critics should withhold comment until they see his film.

"I'm not a theologist. I'm not an archaeologist. I'm a documentary film maker," he said.

The film's claims, however, have raised the ire of Christian leaders in the Holy Land.

"The historical, religious and archaeological evidence show that the place where Christ was buried is the Church of the Resurrection," said Attallah Hana, a Greek Orthodox clergyman in Jerusalem. The documentary, he said, "contradicts the religious principles and the historic and spiritual principles that we hold tightly to."

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight.

"I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," Pfann said. "But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."

"How possible is it?" Pfann said. "On a scale of one through 10 — 10 being completely possible — it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half."

Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun." Ancient Semitic script is notoriously difficult to decipher.

Kloner also said the filmmakers' assertions are false.

"It was an ordinary middle-class Jerusalem burial cave," Kloner said. "The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time."

Archaeologists also balk at the filmmaker's claim that the James Ossuary — the center of a famous antiquities fraud in
Israel — might have originated from the same cave. In 2005, Israel charged five suspects with forgery in connection with the infamous bone box.

"I don't think the James Ossuary came from the same cave," said Dan Bahat, an archaeologist at Bar-Ilan University. "If it were found there, the man who made the forgery would have taken something better. He would have taken Jesus."

None of the experts interviewed by The Associated Press had seen the whole documentary.

[DarkHunter]

Its amusing, nonetheless. Yet another controversey to get the Christians up in arms, which is always funny. Why bother so much over something you don't believe in?

The documentary will be interesting though.

[sai-fujiwara]

I found something like this a few minutes ago. I think that its bogus, thinking that everyone's bones are inside.

[Morgrim]

If lots of people can be called Mohamad (and I can never spell that correctly) then why couldn't somebody be called Jesus? Although I'd love it if they could place the bones at the correct age, just to annoy my old chaplin. (Mainly because he's a jerk)

[RQ]

Piltdown Jesus?

[Vendetta]

"It was an ordinary middle-class Jerusalem burial cave," Kloner said. "The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time."
Actually, according to a story on NPR yesterday afternoon, there were no less than 70 ossuaries in the same exact area that bear the name Jesus.

Also the story I heard stated that the specific grouping of names was a 600:1 chance, not a million. With those names being so common that makes much more sense.

None of the experts interviewed by The Associated Press had seen the whole documentary.
I'm not sure this matters. Who cares if they've seen the documentary; they're obviously experts in their field.

[DarkWolf]

If lots of people can be called Mohamad (and I can never spell that correctly) then why couldn't somebody be called Jesus? Although I'd love it if they could place the bones at the correct age, just to annoy my old chaplin. (Mainly because he's a jerk)
Although I think it was a rhetorical question: Jesus is a popular name even today. It's also a spanish name (pronounced "hey-suce") and then there are those naming themselves after Jesus Christ in honor of him.

[J.L.R.]

I'm sure if they'd come to Oklahoma, they would find several graves with Jesus' bones in it. :D

[Canis Lupus]

If I would be called Jesus because of my birthday, I would sue my parents.

[J.L.R.]

If I would be called Jesus because of my birthday, I would sue my parents.

I doubt it... really... because Jesus is a common name, just like Joshua, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John... A lot of names were made popular through the Bible. You would have just had the name Jesus...

[DarkHunter]

I wish my name was Jesus. I'd have too much fun with that...

A Satanist named Jesus....now there would be irony.

I'm pretty sure I would change my name. I always liked the name Victor, now that I think about it.

[Ender]

If you mount the bones on your walking stick you'll get +10 Holy Aura pts.

If you can trade that is.

[J.L.R.]

I wish my name was Jesus. I'd have too much fun with that...

A Satanist named Jesus....now there would be irony.

I'm pretty sure I would change my name. I always liked the name Victor, now that I think about it.

Just think though... You could have been named... Bob... :P

[Canis Lupus]

Like DarkWolf' sig says:
:eek: JESUS WAS A GAY MEGALOMANIAC :eek:

[DarkHunter]

Just think though... You could have been named... Bob... :P

Bob Dobbs!

[Vendetta]

Bob Dobbs!
That's J.R. "Bob" Dobbs to you.

[John 677808]

I fail to see how Jesus's bones could have lasted this long without being discovered, if this was intended to be serious. :cool:

[Vendetta]

I fail to see how Jesus's bones could have lasted this long without being discovered, if this was intended to be serious. :cool:
Why do you say that? As I said there were over 70 people in the exact same area around the Holy Sepulchre who had the name Jesus.

[John 677808]

Why do you say that? As I said there were over 70 people in the exact same area around the Holy Sepulchre who had the name Jesus.

I meant as in Jesus Christ. :rolleyes:

[Vendetta]

I meant as in Jesus Christ. :rolleyes:
Well I'm kind confused as to what you mean. Did you mean that Jesus' bones would have a glowing aura around them or something? Otherwise, why WOULD people have found them? It's not like there's a roadmap in the bible on exactly where he was buried. And as has been mentioned, the names Jesus and Mary were common, so to find a guy named Jesus, son of Mary, would be pretty likely, and not necessarily the same dude from the bible. Do you see what I mean?

[John 677808]

I think someone would have come across the Jesus Christ bones, before now, if they were there. :p

No I don't have written proof of that, since it's never happened.

[DarkHunter]

That's J.R. "Bob" Dobbs to you.

Cut me some slack, will ya....

[Vendetta]

I think someone would have come across the Jesus Christ bones, before now, if they were there. :p

No I don't have written proof of that, since it's never happened.
But WHY do you believe that, is what I'm asking.

I mean it's not like Christians have been looking, since acording to the scriptures Jesus' body ascended into heaven after he died. Hence why there was no body in the tomb when they went to check three days later (according to Christian beliefs, that is.)

[RQ]

But WHY do you believe that, is what I'm asking.Heh, I can see this leading to comments like "Because the bible says so," "Faith means not asking questions," and other parroted tools of ignorance thinly veiled by spirituality.

[DarkHunter]

Who cares? Jesus, if he existed at all, would have left bones. Why? Because people leave bones and its not exactly been a whole long amount of time. Even if he was buried and thrown into a mass grave (Granted he could have been and then we'd never know).

Does it matter? Not really. Christians will still believe, everybody else will still not believe.

[J.L.R.]

Jerusalem Experts Trash Jesus' Bones Claim
By Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
February 27, 2007

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Claims in a new documentary that an ancient tomb discovered decades ago outside of Jerusalem contained the bones of Jesus and his family may be a great money-making gimmick - but scientifically, it is nonsense, according to leading archeologists and scholars in Jerusalem.

"The Lost Tomb of Jesus," due to air on the Discovery Channel on March 4, claims that a 2,000-year-old tomb containing 10 boxes of bones belonged to the family of Jesus of Nazareth. (Two millennia ago, the dead were left to decompose in a cave and their bones collected a year later and buried in bone boxes or ossuaries.)

The documentary claims that inscriptions on six of 10 ossuaries found in a single tomb indicate that there is a one in 600 chance that bones in the tomb were those of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and a son, along with other family members, a press release said.

According to the Bible, Jesus was God incarnate who was crucified, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. He wasn't married and never had any natural children. Mary Magdalene was a woman out of whom seven demons were exorcized and became a follower of Jesus.

Oscar-award winning filmmaker James Cameron and Emmy Award-winning documentary director Simcha Jacobovici presented their findings at a press conference in New York on Monday where they displayed two ossuaries on loan from the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA)

Unlike previous "discoveries," there is no doubt about the authenticity of the ossuaries, IAA spokeswoman Osnat Goaz told Cybercast News Service.

What is in question is the interpretation of the facts and conclusions drawn by the documentary filmmakers, she said.

The IAA loaned the ossuaries to Cameron and his colleague for their press conference in the interest of "artistic freedom," Goaz said. That does not mean that the IAA backs the film's assertions, she added, although the IAA has chosen not to comment on the film.

Discovered in 1980 and excavated by the Israeli government ahead of a building project in the area, the tomb is currently wedged into the Jerusalem neighborhood of Talpiot and covered by a cement slab.

Professor Amos Kloner of Bar Ilan University oversaw the original archeological dig 27 years ago. Kloner could not be contacted Tuesday, but comments published in the Jerusalem Post indicated that he dismissed the tale entirely.

"It makes a great story for a TV film," Kloner said. "But it's completely impossible. It's nonsense."

Since Jesus was from the Galilee area, there is no way he and his relatives would have had a family tomb in Jerusalem, said Kloner. The tomb in which the ossuaries were found belonged to a "middle class family from the first century," he said.

Hebrew University archeologist and epigraphist Leah DiSegni said that the names found in the tomb were among the most common names of the day.

It would be like finding a tomb with the name "George" on it in the future and people asserting that it must have been the tomb of President George Bush, DiSegni told Cybercast News Service.

Many women in that era were called Miriam (Hebrew for Mary), DiSegni said. That was why they added descriptive titles to their names, such as where they were from.

DeSegni, a Jewish Israeli, also pointed out that according to the Christian faith, Jesus was resurrected and so there would have been no bones left behind.

Until now the Talpiot tomb was just a common excavation, like hundreds of similar tombs from that time period discovered all over Jerusalem, she said.

DiSegni did not think the filmmakers truly believed the theory they were promoting but were simply out to make money.

"It's a pity people are so easily fooled" and more ready to believe in "fables than in reality," she added.

Professor Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar, archeologist and historian at the University of the Holyland, said what was unusual about the tomb is that so many of the ossuaries had names inscribed on them. But the names themselves were not unusual at all.

Most ossuaries that have been found have no names on them, likely because they contained the skeletons of more than one family member, Pfann explained.

He also questioned the actual inscription of the box. It supposedly says "Yeshua ben Yoseph" (Jesus the son of Joseph) but he noted that it was "scratchy" and hard to read.

The filmmakers want to "stir up a hornets nest," said Pfann. He doubted the documentary would affect Christians as long as they don't succumb to skepticism, he added.

"It's not the kind of thing that's a challenge to our faith," said Pfann, a Christian. "For people who really have faith it's not an issue."

'Heresy'

Ken Trestrail is the chaplain at the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem, one of two traditional sites of the tomb in which Jesus was buried and from which he was resurrected.

Another Christian tradition says he was buried on the site where the Church of the Holy Sepulcher now stands inside the Old City of Jerusalem. In either case, what the two have in common is that they have empty tombs and no bones.

Trestrail said there is no point in arguing over where Jesus might have been buried. "It isn't the place - it's the person, and he's alive," Trestrail told Cybercast News Service.

Claiming that Jesus' bones have been found is "a load of nonsense," said Trestrail. "We know that Jesus was raised gloriously from the dead."

He noted that according to the biblical account, Jesus was seen by his disciples and more than 500 people at one time, so it could hardly have been a hallucination.

As to the claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had had a son, Trestrail described it as "heresy."

There is no reason to make up stories about Jesus when the story is recorded clearly in the Bible, he added.

"People would always rather believe in the ridiculous than the miraculous."

[Vendetta]

There is no reason to make up stories about Jesus when the story is recorded clearly in the Bible, he added.

"People would always rather believe in the ridiculous than the miraculous."
Some would posit that belief in some of the crap that happens in the Bible itself IS pretty ridiculous. Also, talking about alleged made-up stories and comparing it to a book that many consider to be FULL of made up stories is pretty dumb.

I figure if you're going to refute these claims (which, hell, I've done in the very same thread) at least do it with evidence and SCIENCE, not some invisible boogey man.

[Canis Lupus]

Soooooo...


They found Jesus' boner? :eek:

[J.L.R.]

Some would posit that belief in some of the crap that happens in the Bible itself IS pretty ridiculous. Also, talking about alleged made-up stories and comparing it to a book that many consider to be FULL of made up stories is pretty dumb.

I figure if you're going to refute these claims (which, hell, I've done in the very same thread) at least do it with evidence and SCIENCE, not some invisible boogey man.

You know... if you look up at my header. I simply posted an article that I read, of which included quotes from various people interviewed, none of which were my own.

[Vendetta]

You know... if you look up at my header. I simply posted an article that I read, of which included quotes from various people interviewed, none of which were my own.
And hence my comments weren't directed at you, mainly at the dude who said them in that article.

[J.L.R.]

And hence my comments weren't directed at you, mainly at the dude who said them in that article.

Okay... Sorry. :P

I agree though... When I read the article, I could see somebody from Arkansas saying something like that. :P

[DarkHunter]

"Nawww, that cain't be Jesus, he dint leaf bones. He's wit God were I'ma going to be when I go. Scuse me I gotta go have sex with ma sister now."

Who wouldn't respect that as scientific and perfect refutation of this claim?

[Moonchild_Starla]

It `tis extreamly amussing to watch the "so called" christians get all worked up over nothing isn't it. My whole family has been sucked into the hell-hole of christianity and even they laugh at the others who believe such silly crocks. Which, quoting them, "isn't very christain like" in it's self. :p Its amusing, nonetheless. Yet another controversey to get the Christians up in arms, which is always funny. Why bother so much over something you don't believe in?

The documentary will be interesting though.

[UNODRAGONE]

I showed this to my sister cause she is Christian (no offense) and she got all pissed off saying "His spirit was resurrected" bullshit the reason they thought he was for real was cause he ressurected body and all :)if it was just a spirit that would make him a ghost :) If you believe in the bible the story is BS if you don't it's interesting :) what fascinates me is they paid so much close attention to the osis what about the bones?

[John 677808]

I am a Christian, infact I'm a Catholic, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God" :D

[Canis Lupus]

Then I'm a fool.

[UNODRAGONE]

I am a Christian, infact I'm a Catholic, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God" :D
I thought Christian and Catholic were two seperate religions? Or secs?

[John 677808]

I thought Christian and Catholic were two seperate religions? Or secs?

Strange, I thought I was saying it in a way that obviously sounded like, I am a Christian and from that a Catholic. :D

[Vendetta]

I thought Christian and Catholic were two seperate religions? Or secs?
A Catholic IS A Christian! :mad:

[UNODRAGONE]

A Catholic IS A Christian! :mad:
then I am real confused lol my sister converted to a Christian and I am Catholic and she believes in different things then I do like she does not go to confession cause she says that ia a catholic thing so where is it the same or different?

[J.L.R.]

Actually, to be a Christian, is simply to be a Follower of Christ. If you take the name literally. So in that respect a Catholic could be considered a Christian.

In application, the Bible, whether Dewey or King James, does however state that to become a Christian one must simply repent of their sins, and ask Jesus Christ to come into their heart... It simple terms, if you will.

The Bible also explicitly states that works, good works that is, is not the key to Salvation, nor prayers to priests, Mary, or any other human body. Priests are here to be guides until the Lord returns, but not even they, being sinful vessels themselves, can take the place of Christ.

As is stated here:
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

John 3:16 states:
For God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotton Son, that whosoever believeth on Him, should not perish but have everlasting life.

These are just a few scriptures name you. To be clear as far as Biblical application to Salvation:
Romans 10
1Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)

7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

18But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

19But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

20But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

21But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Now having shown that... If you go Biblically as to what a Christian is, "a man or woman or child who has confessed their sins before Christ, and accepting Him as not only God but their Savior" then anyone who has not done so, while may be a Christian by name, would certainly not qualify as a Christian by heart.

Historically, and largely reason why the Roman Catholic Church has so many issues, is the fact that Constatine, who supposedly converted to Christianity after a dream that prophesied him winning a major battle with the banner of the Cross, created a Christian nation, and to make it acceptible to a largely polythestic people, melded their "pagan" beliefs with that of Christian personages.

Like I always say, when it comes to finding out what a Christian is, one should always reflect back on the source, namely the Bible.

[UNODRAGONE]

Actually, to be a Christian, is simply to be a Follower of Christ. If you take the name literally. So in that respect a Catholic could be considered a Christian.

In application, the Bible, whether Dewey or King James, does however state that to become a Christian one must simply repent of their sins, and ask Jesus Christ to come into their heart... It simple terms, if you will.

The Bible also explicitly states that works, good works that is, is not the key to Salvation, nor prayers to priests, Mary, or any other human body. Priests are here to be guides until the Lord returns, but not even they, being sinful vessels themselves, can take the place of Christ.

As is stated here:
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

John 3:16 states:
For God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotton Son, that whosoever believeth on Him, should not perish but have everlasting life.

These are just a few scriptures name you. To be clear as far as Biblical application to Salvation:
Romans 10
1Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)

7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

18But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

19But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

20But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

21But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Now having shown that... If you go Biblically as to what a Christian is, "a man or woman or child who has confessed their sins before Christ, and accepting Him as not only God but their Savior" then anyone who has not done so, while may be a Christian by name, would certainly not qualify as a Christian by heart.

Historically, and largely reason why the Roman Catholic Church has so many issues, is the fact that Constatine, who supposedly converted to Christianity after a dream that prophesied him winning a major battle with the banner of the Cross, created a Christian nation, and to make it acceptible to a largely polythestic people, melded their "pagan" beliefs with that of Christian personages.

Like I always say, when it comes to finding out what a Christian is, one should always reflect back on the source, namely the Bible.
still confused :(

[J.L.R.]

PM me with any questions, and I will see if I can answer them, as not to fill WW.com with zi ramblings. :P