Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-27-2017 8:35 AM
363 online now:
CRR, Heathen, PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 359 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,712 Year: 19,318/21,208 Month: 2,077/3,111 Week: 298/574 Day: 12/82 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Science proves that the tomb of Jesus (Christ ?)and James the Just have been found.
Phat
Member
Posts: 9501
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 16 of 54 (797249)
01-16-2017 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Porosity
01-15-2017 4:04 PM


Re: Faith and Science
That's why we have science.
If you can't science that shit, then there's a good chance it's made up and you're probably wasting your life away to a delusion.
Science was never meant to replace belief.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Porosity, posted 01-15-2017 4:04 PM Porosity has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 01-16-2017 11:11 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9501
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 17 of 54 (797250)
01-16-2017 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tangle
01-15-2017 6:16 PM


Re: Faith and Science
To be honest, my beliefs are irrational. They are taken in whatever context I choose them to be, from whatever source. To me and me alone they make sense. And yet I am honest with myself about them. Here they are, in a nutshell:

1) Humans do not have the capability of correcting our nature so as to facilitate a long life of discovery, prosperity, and social justice within our global community.
The Bible was written not just for the people of its time but for our time.

2) There is a spiritual war. Humans are being tested as to our loyalty, commitment, and tenacity. What obviously seems logical and evidence based is, in fact, a delusion. (when it comes to Jesus Christ, evidence-based thinking will never find Him.

3) Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. All that people are asked to do is believe, God Himself will take care of the rest.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 01-15-2017 6:16 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Tangle, posted 01-16-2017 8:11 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4891
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 18 of 54 (797252)
01-16-2017 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Phat
01-16-2017 6:50 AM


Re: Faith and Science
Phat writes:

To be honest, my beliefs are irrational. They are taken in whatever context I choose them to be, from whatever source. To me and me alone they make sense. And yet I am honest with myself about them.

All beliefs are irrational if not founded on evidence so yes, your beliefs are irrational. We sort of know this :-)

1) Humans do not have the capability of correcting our nature so as to facilitate a long life of discovery, prosperity, and social justice within our global community.
The Bible was written not just for the people of its time but for our time.

This is not a belief that is sustainable, it's an error of judgement tainted by your beliefs. On every measurable level human society has improved and is still improving since your god died.

2) There is a spiritual war. Humans are being tested as to our loyalty, commitment, and tenacity.

Tested against what? By what? What war? I can't make sense of this.

What obviously seems logical and evidence based is, in fact, a delusion.

This doesn't make sense. What is evidenced based is logical

(when it comes to Jesus Christ, evidence-based thinking will never find Him.

Agreed. Which is why there's a problem.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. All that people are asked to do is believe, God Himself will take care of the rest.

Well I don't hear it. Nor do billions of others. what kind of god needs to be believed, then hides away only apparently talking to a few people?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 01-16-2017 6:50 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13329
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 19 of 54 (797283)
01-16-2017 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Phat
01-16-2017 6:41 AM


Re: Faith and Science
Phat writes:

Science was never meant to replace belief.


Of course it was.

What you really mean is that believers don't like it when science overturns their beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 01-16-2017 6:41 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13329
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 20 of 54 (797284)
01-16-2017 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by frako
01-14-2017 7:10 PM


frako writes:

All we need is a healthy ovum and we can grow our own jesus christ!!!


It would have to be an Immaculate Ovum.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by frako, posted 01-14-2017 7:10 PM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by vimesey, posted 01-16-2017 11:22 AM ringo has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 879
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 21 of 54 (797286)
01-16-2017 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by ringo
01-16-2017 11:13 AM


It would have to be an Immaculate Ovum.

Not necessarily - Mary's could have been a perfectly ordinary ovum, and God just used IVF.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 01-16-2017 11:13 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 01-16-2017 11:36 AM vimesey has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13329
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 22 of 54 (797289)
01-16-2017 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by vimesey
01-16-2017 11:22 AM


vimesey writes:

ringo writes:

It would have to be an Immaculate Ovum.


Not necessarily - Mary's could have been a perfectly ordinary ovum, and God just used IVF.

Are you using the common and incorrect interpretation of "immaculate"?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by vimesey, posted 01-16-2017 11:22 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by vimesey, posted 01-16-2017 11:44 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 879
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 23 of 54 (797290)
01-16-2017 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by ringo
01-16-2017 11:36 AM


To be fair, I was trying to brighten my otherwise very dull day with a cheap joke :-)

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 01-16-2017 11:36 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1317
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 24 of 54 (797295)
01-16-2017 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LamarkNewAge
01-13-2017 4:29 PM


I'm not a scientists but it is amazing that we seem to have stunning cumulative evidence

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that we do.

The evidence you're presenting is that an analysis of the patina on the James ossuary suggests it comes from the Talpiot tomb. Now, I don't know anything about the science of analysing this sort of thing, so have no intelligent comment there. Maybe it is from the Talpiot tomb, but there are some problems with this idea. Namely, that the original excavators of the tomb say they did not find an ossuary with this inscription. They could be lying, or they could have somehow failed to see the inscription; despite noting the inscriptions on all the other ossuaries they removed.

Even if they are connected, however, what evidence do we really have? We have a tomb in which people were buried with very common names. Joseph, Jesus and Jude are all in the top six male names found on 1st century Jewish ossuaries. Mary is the most common female name. There's also the fact that epigraphers are not even in agreement that the inscription actually says 'Jesus'.

So, it might not say Jesus, but if it does, and if the James ossuary really comes from the same tomb, then the statistics support the fact that it is almost certainly the Jesus' tomb, yes? Well, no. The problem with statistical analysis of this sort lies in the starting assumptions. I had a look at the article by Kilty and Elliot which Tabor asserts shows 'they are convinced one goes from 48% to 92% probability' with the addition of the James ossuary. Now, as an indication of the importance of assumptions, the authors in that article do mention how one assumption changes their calculations. They figure that the probability of the tomb being Jesus' are 47% (not 48) without the James ossuary, and 92% with, if you assume that Jose (Jesus' brother) is a very rare and uncommon name. If, instead, you assume that it's often used as a nickname for Joseph, the comparable figures are 3% and 32%.

This is just one of the assumptions employed. Others include the fact that 'Marya' is more likely than 'Mariam to be the way Jesus' mother wrote her name. Is it? I have no idea. But if we remove this assumption the probability of course drops.

The most obvious issue with their calculation, however, is how they calculated the prior probability. The prior is the reciprocal of the estimated number of contemporary tombs in Jerusalem. This means that, even if we assume all of their other assumptions to be perfect; their probability calculation is only meaningful if we already take for granted the fact that there is a tomb belonging to Jesus' family in Jerusalem. "If Jesus' family had a tomb in Jerusalem, then this is probably it"; is a radically different claim from "This is probably the tomb of Jesus' family". I see no justfication for the prior assumption.

He also mentions DNA as evidence in the quotes you post, but I am flummoxed as to why. As far as I can ascertain (from my admittedly limited reading) the only DNA evidence presented is that the bones supposed to be Jesus and Mary Magdalene have different mtDNA haplogroups. From this we can conclude that they did not share the same mother. That's not evidence of a great deal. The 'Mary' could be the daughter of 'Jesus'; she could be his father's second wife; she could be his half-sister; she could be an adopted sister; she could be the wife of anyone else in the tomb (the tomb contained the remains of between 17 and 35 people). The best we can say is that the DNA evidence does not falsify the idea that these were the remains of a married couple. Not really compelling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-13-2017 4:29 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9743
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 25 of 54 (797307)
01-16-2017 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tangle
01-16-2017 3:14 AM


Re: Conclusion
personally I thought the idea that Jesus was buried in a family tomb frightened Phat somewhat and he wanted it closed down.

Let me approach this from an oblique. Is it your understanding that there is a historical Jesus? If not, then what is likely about claims that some artifact is Jesus tomb?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tangle, posted 01-16-2017 3:14 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tangle, posted 01-16-2017 3:35 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4891
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 26 of 54 (797308)
01-16-2017 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NoNukes
01-16-2017 3:26 PM


Re: Conclusion
NoNukes writes:

Is it your understanding that there is a historical Jesus?


I think it is marginally more likely than not that someone called Jesus existed - but not, of course, that he was anything but human.

If not, then what is likely about claims that some artifact is Jesus tomb?

I haven't said it's likely. It seems to me that it's going to be impossible to prove one way or another. My point was about how Phat reacted, not about the veracity of the claim.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NoNukes, posted 01-16-2017 3:26 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 01-16-2017 4:18 PM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 01-19-2017 9:38 PM Tangle has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7415
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 27 of 54 (797312)
01-16-2017 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tangle
01-16-2017 3:35 PM


Re: Conclusion
I think it is marginally more likely than not that someone called Jesus existed - but not, of course, that he was anything but human.

Well - Yeshua is and was a very popular name. There are several score tombs from the period that bare the name, there are a fair few of them in the Old Testament; I work with one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tangle, posted 01-16-2017 3:35 PM Tangle has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 864
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 28 of 54 (797403)
01-19-2017 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
01-14-2017 2:32 PM


Phat and his issues.
quote:

Im not sure I believe any of this. What possible use is this article? If Jesus was buried with his family, that shoots a hole in all of the Bible stories...which could possibly be the motive of the study. Whats your personal opinion, LNA?

I see lots of contradictions in the Gospels comments on the tomb of Jesus. (plus what Paul said in 1 Cor 15).

I think there could easily be confusion about a spiritual resurrection (if it happened) and a bodily resurrection.

James Tabor (a Christian) think Paul taught a spiritual resurrection. He has debated fundamentalists on this issue.

Bart Ehrman (an agnostic) feels that the faith of Christians came from a mass-mystical type of experience and thinks the tomb stories came later.

John Dominic Crossan says that finding Jesus' body wouldn't threaten his Christian faith. He already felt the resurrection wasn't bodily.

Ironically, I just popped the Talopit tomb issue on a group of 12 blacks (I happened to be around) debating what race Jesus was (in Manhattan). They were debating what race Jesus was (after ironically one asked a question about "how many people read Behold a Pale Horse", by William Cooper, and 8 responded "yes". Ironic considering my posts here about the book) among other things. I got dragged into the conversation but all I said anything about was the issue of his DNA being found. The rub was that they all seemed to not sound threatened. I was amazed. I watched in silence as they talked about errors in the Bible and how they still believe in God.

Very ironic (that wasn't the only ironic event yesterday).

Remember that the Jewish Christians had quite a degree of separation with the dominant "church" of 100 AD. By the 2nd century, Jewish Christians were hated heretics by the Catholics. There seems to have been much diminished contact between James and his community.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 01-14-2017 2:32 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9743
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 29 of 54 (797405)
01-19-2017 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tangle
01-16-2017 3:35 PM


Re: Conclusion
NN writes:

If not, then what is likely about claims that some artifact is Jesus tomb?

Tangle writes:

I haven't said it's likely. It seems to me that it's going to be impossible to prove one way or another. My point was about how Phat reacted, not about the veracity of the claim.

I'll answer the question that I asked you. Almost certainly, any claim that the tomb is that of the Jesus described in the Bible is wrong. Of course, there was likely to be someone named Jesus. The questions I actually asked you were 1) whether you believed that the Jesus in the Bible is a historical figure, and given your answer 2) whether it was likely that this supposed "science" was conclusive of anything. Does this inquiry LNA describes help you in reaching either conclusion?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tangle, posted 01-16-2017 3:35 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Tangle, posted 01-20-2017 3:19 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4891
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 30 of 54 (797408)
01-20-2017 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by NoNukes
01-19-2017 9:38 PM


Re: Conclusion
NoNukes writes:

Almost certainly, any claim that the tomb is that of the Jesus described in the Bible is wrong.

Well that's your assertion. I'd say that the story is so riddled with evidential difficulties as to be almost worthless.

The questions I actually asked you were 1) whether you believed that the Jesus in the Bible is a historical figure,

And I answered that I thought it more likely than not

and given your answer 2) Does this inquiry LNA describes help you in reaching either conclusion?

No.

But none of that has anything to do with my reply to Phat who appeared to be objecting to it simply because it threw doubt on the biblical myth of ascension.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 01-19-2017 9:38 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 01-20-2017 7:05 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 01-20-2017 3:48 PM Tangle has responded

  
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017