Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

LkptTiger

"Jesus Family Tomb"

Recommended Posts

*sigh* X 2

It was only a matter of time until something like this got into the media. Can you imagine what would happen if someone reported anything along these lines about Mohammed?? WWIII!! Do you remember the "cartoon riots"? It's still open season on Christians and Jews with no bag limit. Everyone else is a protected species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read an interesting (fiction) book about the templars and the remains of Jesus. The foreshadowing was really heavy handed but it was better than walking around New Haven in the middle of February.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*sigh* X 2

It was only a matter of time until something like this got into the media. Can you imagine what would happen if someone reported anything along these lines about Mohammed?? WWIII!! Do you remember the "cartoon riots"? It's still open season on Christians and Jews with no bag limit. Everyone else is a protected species.

Muhammad was believed to have been buried in a tomb, the location of which is known. You're creating a fallacious argument to try to make Muslims look bad. The cartoon riots were ridiculous, but I also remember the uproar from Christians when Gary Larson would draw God in "The Far Side". No riots, but people did get stupid about it. Also, are you saying that Christians and Jews are persecuted more than Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or Atheists? Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muhammad was believed to have been buried in a tomb, the location of which is known.You're creating a fallacious argument to try to make Muslims look bad. The cartoon riots were ridiculous, but I also remember the uproar from Christians when Gary Larson would draw God in "The Far Side". No riots, but people did get stupid about it. Also, are you saying that Christians and Jews are persecuted more than Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or Atheists? Please.

Muhammad was believed to have been buried in a tomb, the location of which is known.

Didn't know that

You're creating a fallacious argument to try to make Muslims look bad.

No I'm not. I never said where I thought Mohammed was burried. I am saying that if someone wrote or filmed or drew something that went in the face of Islam, the extremists would go apeshit. Where is Salomon Rushdie anyway??? Sorry if I butchered his name.

but I also remember the uproar from Christians when Gary Larson would draw God in "The Far Side".

Was a price ever placed on his head? Did the world Christian community demand a public apology?

Also, are you saying that Christians and Jews are persecuted more than Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or Atheists?

No. I am saying that it is much more accepted when it does happen. Can you give an example of the last time a public figure, ie; news broadcaster, commedian, movie producer, writer, politician, or any sort, made a disparaging remark about Christianity or Judaeism and there was any backlash? Then can you find an example of a public figure, see above for possible examples, making a disparaging remark, even in passing or "accidentally", against Islam that did not result in AP headlines, or riots, or looting, boycots or someone getting their head sawed off? I can't. The Pope's issue was quoting a guy who lived in the 12th (or so century). The fact that the guy said (wrote it) it however many hundreds of years ago was never questioned. The problem was that someone dare bring it up today.

EDIT:: I just remembered Mel Gibson's drunken tirade. Though I would wager money if he had been of another faith, or no faith, nothing would have ever made the headlines except that he was arrested for DUI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the whole documentary is amazing. i'm a history major and one of my classes this semester is an course on the history of the new testament. according to my professor, these ossuaries were discovered in 1980 and everyone in the scientific community has completely ignored them because there is a less than 1 percent chance that any of the tombs have any relation to jesus of nazareth. there were 15 ossuaries discovered, and of the 15, 5 had the names of biblical figures related to jesus. the other 10 were just random names that are common to the time period. also important to note is that the names joseph, jesus and mary were some of the most common names from that area in that time period. what surprises me the most is that someone well respected like james cameron would produce something that has been shot down by just about every single respected scholar... if it was a big find, you would have heard about it in 1980 when it was discovered...

chadd, which book are you reading? the one by khoury or the one by berry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chadd, which book are you reading? the one by khoury or the one by berry?

Actually I read them both and they were similarly flawed. I liked the concept and premise in Berry's book much more. I didn't like Khoury's flashbacks or the ending. The one I was referring to was Berry's book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a religious man either, mack, but a number - if not the majority - of the global conflicts today were manifested by disagreement(s) on the subject. Like it or not, it shapes the world we live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The paradox that I am still goes to church every Sunday, but it's more out of habit/resiliency than anything. It's not so much that religion shapes our world as much as it's fanatics in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's next...finding Santa's workshop in the North Pole...

maybe i am misunderstanding your humor, but almost every scholar would agree Jesus was a real, actual person. its the god-incarnate issue is what some question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chadd, tried to PM you about some books but it's disabled and i don't want to get blasted for going off topic...

hattrick, i don't know what he was trying to say about santa, but scholars best guesses are that jesus was indeed laid to rest in a cave and his body was either removed by the romans on orders of the jewish authorities, or his tomb was desecrated by thieves... the bible says the cave was guarded but this could have easily been inserted to "prove" that there wasn't any tampering or because it was actually true and they were there, and these roman guards were in on the fix. if it was by the romans, well that move certainly backfired...

but the fact that anyone is claiming new, definitive, historical evidence is rather preposterous...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's next...finding Santa's workshop in the North Pole...

maybe i am misunderstanding your humor, but almost every scholar would agree Jesus was a real, actual person. its the god-incarnate issue is what some question.

No you got my humor right. Was Jesus a real person? Sure, but I'm sure there was alot of people named Jesus back then. As far as religion goes I think everyone has a right to thier own beliefs just don't try and force it on other people or look down on others because they don't believe the same things. Isn't it ironic how religion is suppose to bring people peace but is responsible for more death than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's next...finding Santa's workshop in the North Pole...

maybe i am misunderstanding your humor, but almost every scholar would agree Jesus was a real, actual person. its the god-incarnate issue is what some question.

Actually, that might not be accurate. A few recent books have suggested there is virtually no evidence from contemporaries of his existance. All the accounts were written 50-300 years later. Apparently, there is no record/mention of him among Roman or Middle Eastern artifacts of the time. Also, there had been previous cultures to have a Messiah and Resurrection story, so some scholars think it may be an example of the first culture to have its written record survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is highly unlikely. The earliest gospel, the gospel of mark, was written circa 70 CE, or 37/40 years after the death of jesus depending on which date you go by. The last gospel, John, was written circa 100. The "newest" books in the bible are likely 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus, both written around 150 CE. No book in the New Testament is 300 years past the death of Jesus.

Also important to notice is that the book of Mark does not mention a resurrection or an ascension to heaven, only an empty tomb. Jesus is not called "messiah" until later in the gospels, and title "messiah" refers to the belief of the Jews that an earthly descendant (not divine) of King David would come and rescue them from persecution and be their king. It's obviously a complicated subject, but the theology and history are two very different things.

The bible is a book of theology, and one of the biggest hugest most gigantic errors is that everyone today takes it completely out of context from its intended readers and its purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what language was all of the early stuff written in and who/when was it translated. Man is great at translating things into what the want it to be or what best suites thier needs. If the first book was written 37/40 after JC's death that is a long time for things to get forgotten, written incorrectly or misunderstood. What is the bibles intended purpose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't just referring to the dates of the writers of the gospels. There are ancient historians (Pliny, Tacitus and others) whose writings have been added to the "public knowledge." However, the range of their writings occured between 50-300 years later.

You seem well read on the topic, but It's not relevant which book mentions "Messiah" or "Resurrection." What's relevant is 2000 years later it, too, has become part of the public knowledge, just as hundreds of years earlier, other cultures (Mithra was one) had a similar story as part of its public knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the first part of what you just said is for the most part accurate. todays translations are indeed many translations away from the original, however some much more than others. if you read the new jerusalem bible, you're in good shape. but if you're reading the king james, well then you're in rough shape.

many things have been altered to read the way we want them to, but that doesnt come close to the fiction that the original writers weaved into the gospels to have it read the way they wanted it to. the difference is that the people in the first century would have been able to identify these things as literary devices inserted to make a theological point whereas today many people ignore this and take everything in the bible as historical fact which is borderline absurd when you stop to think about it, especially if you know that it's a book that serves a theological purpose and is not intended to serve as history textbook.

Also, we're only talking about the new testament when we talk about jesus, so forget anything from the old testament, as they are two completely separate books written for different audiences by very different people. I can write you an essay on who wrote what for whom, but i actually have to go to class now, so it will have to wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow!!

This thread is a microcosm look at our society. Oddly, so many speaking factually about misinformation and myths or just fabrications.

There's no scientific or historical question that Jesus of Nazareth existed and did what the Bible claims. There is more S/H evidence that he was and did as the Bible claims than there is that George Washington was and did what we all accept as fact as the US' first President. Yet so many deny it, and or try to dismiss it as folklore.

The S/H evidence clearly indicates that he did miraculous things, and his death and disappearance of his body also involved unexplainable miraculous events. Rejecting it or denying it does not mean it didn’t happen. There are many skeptics that make claims to the contrary, and attempt to explain the events of his life as other than miraculous, but none of them have any scientific/historical evidence to support them. Coming up with hypothetical explanations do not change the facts.

So we can rewrite history with made up myths, or we can accept the available evidence.

The Bible is both theological and historical in context and intent. Translating is much more of a science than is being given credit. However, understanding the culture and context that original texts and languages are translated from is open for some debate.

The Old Testament has everything to do with the New Testament, the Old being merely a foretelling and a preparatory sag way to the New. The Old is a telling of the law and promise for things to come. The new being a fulfillment of that law and the fruition of the promises.

Religion is a difficult tumultuous thing. Truth and facts are not so. Just because some buffoon comes up with some hypothetical theory and a group of buffoons decide to treat those theories as facts, does not make them so.

Very interesting thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect your opinions, particularly given the subject, but the point some scholars are making is quite the opposite of what you are expressing. What they are saying is there is no contemporary evidence that he existed. There have been millions of pages written since then but, if anything had ever been written about him while he existed, it never survived.

Strictly for after dinner conversation, here's a link to a website that is very concise, and well notated, in arguing the above view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the first book was written 37/40 after JC's death that is a long time for things to get forgotten, written incorrectly or misunderstood. What is the bibles intended purpose?

This is where our culture/society today has changed since the culture and society of the bible. Oral tradition was by far the accepted form of historical documentation in every culture since the dawn of time. With the inventions of such things like the printing press, computer etc this has changed to what we have today. So when something like Jesus healing the cripple man that was lowered into the house by friends, this was recorded through eye witnesses telling their families who would tell their friends and families and so on.

Many Jewish Rabbi’s mention Jesus in the Talmud, so I would definitely agree that he was an actual person who claimed to be the Son of God. There would be no reason for these rabbis to mention Jesus if he was just a man who was trying to make peace.

One thing I have always wondered when someone says that the writers of the bible wrote their own ideas and basically lies into the bible for their own benefit, what and how did they benefit from making up that stuff? They were persecuted like crazy from the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. until Constantinople declared Christianity the official religion of the empire.

Lastly, I completely agree that alot of Christianity or church today honestly missed the point of what their messiah was al about. You can never force a view or belief towards someone, it’s a decision. you can make a RH hockey player shoot LH, he has to choose to change (sorry I know its a stupid hockey analogy) I am sorry that the church today is like that, they need a big wake up call, because more and more people today are turned off to Christianity because of the church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect your opinions, particularly given the subject, but the point some scholars are making is quite the opposite of what you are expressing. What they are saying is there is no contemporary evidence that he existed. There have been millions of pages written since then but, if anything had ever been written about him while he existed, it never survived.

Strictly for after dinner conversation, here's a link to a website that is very concise, and well notated, in arguing the above view.

Anyone can call themselves a scholar, i.e. James Cameron acting like an authority.

Well notated and very concise doesn't make it factual or true. No highly educated (scholars) agree with that type of propaganda. Scholars use actual historically accurate evidence to support their opinions not made up theories without foundation. As stated, there is a lot about Jesus that is argued by real scholars, but his existence, and who he claimed to be are not among them. Neither do they argue that his body disappeared. They only argue weather he was who he claimed, and what did happen to his body etc. BTW, these arguments come to less logical, and less likely (statistically) explanations then the Bibles accounts, but granted not scientifically provable.

Anyone that brings up things like finding his remains, and or questioning his existence has absolutely 0 credibility with scientists and historians (actual scholars). No historical authorities even care, because the evidence to the contrary is too compelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect your opinions, particularly given the subject, but the point some scholars are making is quite the opposite of what you are expressing. What they are saying is there is no contemporary evidence that he existed. There have been millions of pages written since then but, if anything had ever been written about him while he existed, it never survived.

Strictly for after dinner conversation, here's a link to a website that is very concise, and well notated, in arguing the above view.

Scholars use actual historically accurate evidence to support their opinions not made up theories without foundation.

It's ironic you've chosen those words. One premise of the article is exactly what you've said, that scholars need to use historically accurate evidence or, lacking such evidence, modify their theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect your opinions, particularly given the subject, but the point some scholars are making is quite the opposite of what you are expressing. What they are saying is there is no contemporary evidence that he existed. There have been millions of pages written since then but, if anything had ever been written about him while he existed, it never survived.

Strictly for after dinner conversation, here's a link to a website that is very concise, and well notated, in arguing the above view.

Wow!!!

That's the type of thing I am talking about. I read some mor of the stuff on that link.

Blatant Lies. Mis-quotes from the Bible and made up facts about almost every thing on that site. Yet, written as factual, so some blind followers believe it. Not a single claim I read on that link is true. I mean even basic beliefs and claims of the Bible are just blatant lies. Read the Bible your self to see what the Bible claims, and you'll see that even those things are just plain wrong.

"Scholars all agree that Martians took the bodies of JFK and Elvis, there is no evidence beyond a vast governmental conspiracy to support otherwise!"[sarcasm]

It might make specific claims, but they aren't very concise, nor are they well notated. Very poorly done, because to many claims that aren't even close to true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...