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

Wow!!

Are you saying that there is scientific evidence that the miracles attributed to Jesus actually happened? Or, are you just saying that these miracles should be accepted as fact unless they can be disproven? I cannot disprove the existence of Leprechauns, yet that does not in itself prove their existence.

To the best of my knowledge, Jews dispute Jesus' resurrection and ascension, and overall don't think he was really that special of a guy.

I am screwing up. Hit a wrong button or something...anyways, my comment:

I am saying that historians do not debate that he existed and did miraculous things. Jewish scholars do not disagree with this either. They do disagree about the explanations of his miracles, and the explanation of the disappearance of his body etc. But no, even the Jewish scholars do not debate that he existed, and had a reputation of doing miraculous things, and who he claimed to be. Buffoons argue these type of things.

Like the miracles he did were just tricks of deception or divine, this is debated, but that he made a supposed lame man to walk is not debated, just whether Jesus actually divinely healed the man is brought into question, not with any empirical evidence mind you, but debated.

Just some of the things that less educated (on the topic) persons argue, as opposed to actual scientific and historical uncertainties. The link provided questioning his existence, and the documentary by James Cameron, and these types of claims are not given much attention by actual historians because the empirical evidence contradicts them soo strongly.

Point summary. There are scientific/historical questions about the Bible, Christianity, Jesus, and other religious issues, but these are not some of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hockeydoc, you are quite a faithful skeptic lol...

people should be aware that a person going around healing people was hardly unusual in the first century. they're the ancient equivalent of what we'd call doctors. the fact that jesus is purported to have performed many miracles is hardly strange and would not have been seen as a unique or divine quality. like hockeydoc said, it's not really disputed that these miracles were witnessed, however it is certainly debatable as to whether or not they were actually miracles.

The resurrection is indeed one of the differences between judaism and christianity but it's just a peice of the puzzle. the gospels dont even agree on what happened after the death.

the difference that some people don't understand when they say that jesus fulfilled the promise of the new testament is that the "messiah" from the old testament wasn't supposed the son of god, he was supposed to be an earthly descendant of david who would become king and lead the jews to retake the promised land. when he died, that presented a little problem because even his followers, who were jews, didn't see it coming, and actually abandoned their faith. the fact that they have a somewhat sudden change of heart sometime after his death is puzzling and historically unexplainable. was he resurrected and did he present himself to the disciples?

who knows, but the gospels use these things to their advantage by presenting jesus as not only a descendant of david but also the son of god, therefore fulfilling the old covenant and also creating a new covenant. the jews were very not cool with this and so they kicked the christians out of their religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further ruminations on our "after dinner" conversation, in which I, too, agree that we've all taken a civil approach. It will be a bit of pain to quote from all the posts, but you should be able to understand which is being referred to.

A couple of you have made comparisons between the paper trails for Jesus, George Washington, Caesar and Plato.

For Washington, we have newspaper accounts during the war and his presidency, his residence (Mount Vernon), portraits and sculptures made during his life, his signature on official documents, as well as mention of him in numerous letters/documents by the likes of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, et al.

For Caesar, we have his own writings, letters to and from Cicero, Cicero's writings, his likeness on statues and coins made during his life, as well as his mention in other letters that have been preserved from that time. Here is a biography by a former professor at Oxford. Very dry reading, but you'll be able to find evidence culled from his lifetime.

For Plato, we have less evidence that he lived. What we do have, however, are writings by an author who decided to call himself Plato. Plato's biography

For Jesus, we have no evidence from contemporaries. No mention by the Romans, Herod or Pilate. It doesn't mean he didn't live, it only means no evidence of his life survived. (And a legacy cannot count as "evidence.")

Some of you have stated scholars do not doubt the veracity of Jesus. Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Albert Schweitzer and many of the Founding Fathers certainly doubted Christianity and, possibly, Jesus, although they likely accepted a supreme being. If you scroll down these links, you'll see numerous quotes from scholars in history, or our Founding Fathers. There also were quotes from scholars toward the bottom of the link I provided yesterday, as well two links to reviews of recent books, some of which are written by known scholars, that lean toward disbelieving of the overall mythos.

Last, regarding oral documentation, I just don't buy that humans had better accuracy in their verbal record keeping, simply because they didn't have the distractions of modern technology. Have any of you ever played the Telephone Game? I clearly remember it from third grade. The teacher whispered one sentence into the ear of the first student, who passed it along to the next student. Twenty-five students later, it was amazing how far off the last student was, especially since the kids only had to remember the words for about five seconds.

Or I'll have to throw my lovely mother under the bus. I can't tell you how many times she's recounted to me something she told to one of my siblings about something I had said. It's like clockwork, but the conversation goes like this: "I never said that!" "Yes, you did." "No, I didn't say that. I said this." The point I'm making, of course, is a myth was already started within the family from just one person over X amount of time. Again, multiply that by years upon years and people upon people, and it's easy to see how we're all positive Washington said, "I cannot tell a lie. I cut down the cherry tree." I have no doubt that humans were better about passing down their knowledge, verbally, but I don't see how that guarantees better accuracy over the eons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason, You should check out "the templar legacy" by Steve Berry. Some of the writing is a little weak and the foreshadowing is a little heavy handed but some of the theological premises in the book make it entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what you've described, Chadd, it does sound up my alley.

By the way, I meant to add one more link, the religious composition of the US, to my portion of this conversation. During the 90's, Americans who considered themselves to be Christian dropped to 76.5%. I think it's reasonable to assume that some of the remaining 23.5% are either scholars or historians and disbelievers.

Again, it's obviously okay for any of us to believe or disbelieve in anything that doesn't impact others, but we have to accept that not everyone (scholars, historians and plebians, alike) agrees with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, just because someone writes something does not make them a scholar.

Second, just because someone represents themselves as a scholar does not make them so, either.

Third, I don't believe that anyone said scholars don't argue or debate these issues. It was and is however true that scholars in the specific field of Roman, Jewish, and Christian History and Science have come to a consensus that these issues described herein are for the most part agreed upon. When these specialized scholars debate, they do not have much debate on the topics I've stated, as the evidence is too compelling.

I would have never said that these topics are not debated (at nauseam), but merely that the experts in these fields do spend a lot of energy and time debating things, and these issues are not among the highlights of those debates or arguments.

Buffoons argue issues they are not experts in, and use quotes from other books to defend their points. There is a big difference in quoting and sighting historical documents, and quoting some one else’s book to defend a stance. Did someone mention hearsay?

BTW, define contemporary writings. The gospels are written mostly by contemporaries, including the gospels published in the Bible. There are many contemporary authors that write about Jesus outside of the Bible, and as been stated before (I believe by Snake22) it is commonly known that all “contemporary†writings of that time are actually written years after the fact. Yes, the Roman rulers did usually dictate their writings for someone else to write, and typically did not become a part of official documentation until years later. I challenge you or anyone else to prove the historical documents being sited as Caesars letters are actually penned by his own hand…BTW which Caesar might you be referring to, as Caesar is a title of the ruler more than an individuals name during the times being discussed herein. Just as the book of Matthew in the Bible is historically known to be written by Levi, known as the tax collector Matthew. Again names in that time were used differently than now.

To compare our societies passing along of stories to the passing along of stories in the era being discussed is not even a comparison. Historian Scholars again, do not make this mistake by debating the accuracy of verbally passed on stories from these cultures, as the times and process was very different from anything we can compare in our culture. Historians do not debate these things. Un educated (in the field) people are the only ones that you will ever see making these type of arguments. Again, many people like James Cameron argue these things, but note credible historians, because the evidence is too compelling.

Go and personally research in an un-biased manner history, not books with titles like “De bunk the Jesus Fallacyâ€, but actual history, and historical documents for your self. There are plenty of non-religious Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, so you can actually study these historical document yourself, including the Bible, rather than taking some authors word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are discussing evidence, proof, etc.

It is commonly known by persons in the field of science that nothing can be “proven†emphatically. Only that things can be proven beyond a point of common reason. Thereby differing fields of study come to a consensus of a defined standard parameter of compelling evidence. If the evidence of a said issues within any given field falls within said parameter, it is then therefore agreed upon as fact/proven.

That being said, History being no different, and the criterion by which historical issues are accepted as fact being well defined in the field. Thereby providing laymen with historical facts. This is the criteria by which I am making the statements in this thread.

Many arguments can be made to contradict the evidence on these issues, but these arguments are not made within the historian community.

Examples:

Our legal system defines proof as evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. But creating reasonable doubt to argue history does not follow the accepted burden as defined by the historical community.

DNA proof is scientifically not proof as defined by the scientific community, but for legal purposes it does meet the burden as it does go beyond what can be defined as reasonable doubt.

These books and other writings that claim Jesus didn’t exist do not use the criteria of proof as defined in the historical community. Therefore they could just as easily argue against many other things we all take for granted, but they do not.

Using our legal systems definition of proof to verify something historically is just ridiculous, yet that’s what is being done quite regularly.

This is why the links you provided aren’t viciously attack by the church, they have no credibility. They are applying burdens of proof that are not acceptable burdens in the historical community, and that are not applied to other areas of history we all take for granted. Not to mention the previously stated claims on those sites that are just plain wrong. I.e. (as Snake22 said) the statements about the authorship of the 4 gospels of the Bible. When wrong about some basics, no credibility given for anything else said, and quoting another book does not give credibility by any standards of proof.

It seems that snake does not believe the Bible to be factual, but has enough historical experience and knowledge to debate claims therein that are historically questionable, and is very much aware of the fact that the claims made by James Cameron, and the links you provided have no veracity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope to remember to watch this on Sunday.

I hope they answer the many questions that come to mind like...

Does the skeleton show evidence of the crucifixion?

How old were the victims at the time of death?

What was the cause of death of the child? Boy or girl? I hope Mary died of old age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow shoot me in the face... this could be one of the biggest hoaxes of all time...

anyone that is educated and wants a good laugh should watch this... Trailer

it shows them "excavating" a site that was discovered almost 30 years ago. it says that every name is from the gospels, but fails to mention besides the 6 relevant ossuaries that there are 9 other irrelevant ossuaries. it says "this discovery has slipped through the cracks" whereas it was actually completely ignored by all historians because it's not important. it points out that the site is "halfway between jerusalem and bethlehem" which is absolutely absurd and it would take a complete nutcase to find any significance in that random place... he would be in either jerusalem or bethlehem, not in between lol... or more likely he would be somewhere in galilee where he lived...

i wonder how much they paid their scholars off to give credence to this. i have bad news and i'm sorry to break this to a lot of you, but if you're watching a history program on the discovery channel or the history channel, and it's about the bible, then you're wasting your time. every one that i've seen is littered with unsubstantiated claims that are completely false and go against every accepted conclusion made on the subject... i remember one that tried to place the exodus 500 years before it happened, and another one that was okay with moses writing the books of the Torah... the history channel does poor history, at least when it comes to actually having to do research and investigate and not things from modern times that are well documented...

wont let me edit... if you want some evidence, it looks like the program before this runs is about noah's ark... it is nearly criminal for the "history" channel to undertake a program on noah's ark... if you study the history of the bible, you can't even start before moses and the exodus and they want to find the remains of noah's ark...

oh i forgot something else... the inscription reads "yeshua bar yosef" or jesus son of joseph... a title that he was never called. jesus of nazareth and jesus son of mary are the titles he was most frequently called, because it is suspected that his father, joseph, likely died very early in his life and he was not close/familiar with his father and identified with his mother. another possible conclusion is that mother mary was a prostitute because the sons of prostitutes often go by their mothers name since the father is usually unknown, however in this case it is unlikely because if she was a woman of the night, then the bible would almost certainly make an excuse for this and explain it away using what is called apologetic literature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope to remember to watch this on Sunday.

I hope they answer the many questions that come to mind like...

Does the skeleton show evidence of the crucifixion?

How old were the victims at the time of death?

What was the cause of death of the child? Boy or girl? I hope Mary died of old age.

The odd thing is very few remains ever showed signs of crucifixion. The bodies were normally left of the cross until their bodies had been picked over by the scavenger birds. It was done as a warning to others and to deny the dignity of burial to those considered criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true chadd. there are also variations of crucifixion, and it can take anywhere from 1-3 days for the victim to die from suffocation. sometimes they put a little block of wood on the vertical post so the victim has something to sit on which just draws out the process... not very nice... the other thing is that the nails dont go through the palms, the go between the bones in the wrist and one goes through both ankles... you don't want to break any bones because it will take away their ability to support themselves and they wont last as long or be tortured as much. also, when you are lead to crucifixion, you are usually are strapped to your own personal crossbeam, and there is one vertical post that they re-use. he would not have carried his whole cross as the passion likes to suggest...

so to answer your questions that will not be answered in this fake documentary, jesus would have been either 30 or 33, if his body was removed quickly and not left to rot, he wouldn't have holes in his hands or his feet, and it is very very very unlikely despite popular conspiracy theories, books and movies, that he was married, had a wife/girlfriend, or had any children... though it is definitely fun to wonder about and the fiction novels on the subject are very entertaining...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked up "The Templar Legacy" at Sam's Club today, Chadd. Seems like it could be a fun read.

I'll try to pick up my part in this scintillating debate when I return from hockey tonight. There are some points that certainly don't pass muster for me..... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true chadd. there are also variations of crucifixion, and it can take anywhere from 1-3 days for the victim to die from suffocation. sometimes they put a little block of wood on the vertical post so the victim has something to sit on which just draws out the process... not very nice... the other thing is that the nails dont go through the palms, the go between the bones in the wrist and one goes through both ankles... you don't want to break any bones because it will take away their ability to support themselves and they wont last as long or be tortured as much. also, when you are lead to crucifixion, you are usually are strapped to your own personal crossbeam, and there is one vertical post that they re-use. he would not have carried his whole cross as the passion likes to suggest...

so to answer your questions that will not be answered in this fake documentary, jesus would have been either 30 or 33, if his body was removed quickly and not left to rot, he wouldn't have holes in his hands or his feet, and it is very very very unlikely despite popular conspiracy theories, books and movies, that he was married, had a wife/girlfriend, or had any children... though it is definitely fun to wonder about and the fiction novels on the subject are very entertaining...

if the person was crucified they would still show signs of it on the skeleton. There would be bone scarring, bone chips and even a possible break.

Crucifiction was very nasty. Some were crucified upside down or with a rope around the neck to help slowly strangle you as you slid down. Imagine have birds peck or animals gnaw at you while still alive...not a fun day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i did not say that there wouldn't be signs... i said they wouldn't be on his palms as a lot of (religious) people like to believe... in other words, stigmata = false

while we're at it... did anyone watch last night? it was interesting to say the least... i thought it was amusing that the same channel that aired the documentary felt the need to create a forum to discredit it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i did not say that there wouldn't be signs... i said they wouldn't be on his palms as a lot of (religious) people like to believe... in other words, stigmata = false

while we're at it... did anyone watch last night? it was interesting to say the least... i thought it was amusing that the same channel that aired the documentary felt the need to create a forum to discredit it...

I watched parts of it and they made a good case for their assertions. Short of a thundering voice from the sky there is no way some people will ever believe anything that strays from the authorized canon of their chosen religion. There are also some people who will believe anything they hear. In any case, there is a reason that religion is called your "faith", as facts are few and far between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...