Jesus Tomb Found

Yes, they took out all of the letters in the KJV that weren't ACGT and that is Jesus' DNA. They compared it to the DNA of the guy in the coffin and voila!Actually that's rubbish. Jesus blood can be found in any Catholic church (and a few others besides). It looks a little....erm...grapey...but the DNA definitely matches the guy in the tomb. Well...they both have DNA anyway.

The Qur'an has a lot to say about Jesus. Such as

quote:

---

[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

---

And his divinity, his parentage, how he left this world, and some of the things he said.Incidentally, a lot of the confusion with Creavolution has come from how you made a statement in second person plural (you don't need evidence to believe). And then later switching to first person (I personally don't need evidence.You made an observation which was that Which could easily be applied to the Qur'an. Moreso in some sense since there is more physcial evidence for the Qur'anic Mohammed. I'd have thought you would agree with that, but it seems not, and Creavolution and I are both curious why.

Nobody is suggesting the Qur'an is contemporary. Neither are the New Testament gospels really. However, it does contain an alternative bio of Jesus. I have perceived what you are trying to say. What I am trying to say is that there is confusion over what you are saying because of the short and ambiguous manner of it. I'd say it was a very very foolish thing to do. We could end up thinking all sorts of crazy historical claims were true. I might be tempted to think that cunning Odysseus ended a ten year siege with a giant wooden equine, for example.Over time, we have developed a concept of critical thinking wherein we are skeptical about claims until corroborating evidence can be found, rather than accept all claims until evidence contradicts it. Many people accept this concept except in cases where the historical claims have been taught as truthful by their own culture at which point the special pleading begins.And I think that is what Creavolution is basically saying. It certainly looked like you were special pleading for your beliefs purely because you happened to be born in a place and time where they were taught as being historically correct. The $64,000 question being, why not? Upon inspection, one generally finds the answer to the question is 'culture'. That is to say, there is no real reason to disbelieve the teachings of Mohammed other than you were raised in a society that didn't agree with the teachings of Mohammed. So it turns out that what you agree with ends up being a matter as arbitrary as where/when you were born.Some people like to eliminate this absurd and arbitrary reasoning, and prefer rational and critical examination with consistent application of rules. Creavolution was simply trying to state something along these lines.Thus, based solely on ancient writings and discounting cultural biases, there is as much reason to believe Mohammed was right as there is reason to think Jesus was right: Not a great deal.Hopefully that'll clear up some of the confusion that has emerged between the two of you.

Indeed. One might almost say that one generally finds the answer to the question is 'culture'. It is a shout out-out for critical thinking over any belief including that of an historical Jesus. Yes, it is easy to understand. You don't accept evidence that contradicts what you believe because it contradicts what you believe. I think pointing out that this is not rational, is fairly easy to understand. Believers often deny that something is evidence if that evidence contradicts their belief.A critical thinker would say something more like "There are many biographies of a character called 'Jesus', most of them contradictory in their historical claims. Each account is at best secondary evidence, though the biographies that were written earlier are more likely to contain accurate recordings than the later versions. This tomb is not connected in anyway with any of these biographies other than some of the names and relationships coincide. They are common names so it can basically be rejected." Most historians require corroborating evidence of the gospels before they can be established. They must be established before they can be 'overridden'. Certain elements of the gospels have been shown to be historically accurate. Most of the elements have not. Too many of the elements are confusing and contradictory requiring historical gymnastics to explain.So: I don't think there is enough to rule one version in.

---

The essential thing for you to remember anastasia, is that I was simply trying to help you see eye-to-eye with Creavolution. The two of you are often making valid points to each other, but you are talking about different things - I was hoping to facilitate a resolution to that.For example, you said: Creavolution was doing that very thing. He was trying to say that you shouldn't be special pleading for your own belief, the general rule you originally proposed required special pleading. However, you modified the general rule later (that is you went from the general second person plural, to the specific first person singular).

I was talking about belief. I am not suggesting you don't revise your opinion of what a text says when you learn more about what a text says. You said 'I, as a believer in the gospels, do not accept a much more recent biography of Jesus as evidence', which is what I am responding to. You just stated that you don't accept certain pieces of evidence (later biographies) as evidence because you believe what some other evidence (certain, but not all earlier biographies) states. If you didn't mean what you said, that's another thing. I was describing a part of critical thinking: skeptisism regarding claims made by people. Quite easily. It happens all the time - that is what all conclusions in sciences (incl historical studies) are tentative. What were once called facts are overthrown by new evidence or new, better ways of understanding existing evidence. Yes, the more corroborating evidence, the less likely they are to be overthrown. All I said was that claims made in writing shouldn't be accepted as is, and other evidence should be looked at too. I wouldn't say that was necessarily corroborating evidence, that is just consistent with the hypothesis, but the names alone are too common. We couldn't override the entire NT with one piece of evidence either. There are certain things in the Bible which are established at this time. Things such as Roman occupation. We accept them because of the corroborating evidences. Yes, I'm fairly sure that is what I am saying. Yes, in a sense. However, it would at least be a true statement. Then you are truly unique. I am culture satiated, culture biased and culture brain-washed.But I know what you mean Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.