Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus Tomb Found
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 242 (387267)
02-27-2007 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Heathen
02-26-2007 11:54 AM


quote:
statistical analysis and DNA show the tomb is that of Jesus.
It's not clear from the article, but do they have a sample of Jesus's DNA?
Of course not. This is an absurd claim. About the best you can do with blood found is determine if a human shed it, determine the racial genetic markers, and probably the sex of the person who shed it. That's about it. As you alluded to, in order for someone to match the blood in the tomb would first mean that Jesus' blood to be on file some 2,000 years before the advent of DNA testing.
What you can do is rule out suspects.... so to speak. Another claim is that the Shroud of Turin contains trace amounts of human blood. Since the Shroud is reputed to have wrapped Jesus' body for burial, you can either confirm a match between the Shroud and the tomb or to bring it into disrepute. Afterall, if the Shroud is the burial clothing of Jesus and the tomb is legitimate, then why isn't the Shroud in the tomb? Obviously one or both are forgeries or are misinterpretations of evidence.
Now, to the Talpoit tomb itself.
What hoopla is really about is that its posited to have six names that are similar to the gospel accounts and that it is statistically improbable that a family would contain these same names-- even though most of the names were incredibly common at that time. That's like saying, "Bill, Bob, Jane, and Tom" could only come from one possible source.
A recent article I read offers these questions about the validity of the claim:
IF IT REALLY WAS JESUS' TOMB---
In the final analysis this seems like yet another attempt to malign Jesus. Interestingly, those who have an aversion towards Jesus often deny His existence altogether-- that is, until something that contradicts the gospels comes to light. And then all of a sudden Jesus was real, but there was nothing divine about Him.
You aren't ever going to find Jesus in any tomb in any place on earth because He rose from the dead. All praise, honor, and glory to Him. Amen.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Heathen, posted 02-26-2007 11:54 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by kuresu, posted 02-27-2007 1:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 24 by Heathen, posted 02-27-2007 2:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 02-27-2007 3:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 02-27-2007 3:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 29 by Brian, posted 02-27-2007 4:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-27-2007 4:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2007 4:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 02-28-2007 7:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 242 (387278)
02-27-2007 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by kuresu
02-27-2007 1:45 PM


tomb
you cite all these real reasons why the tomb isn't his, and then end with this fantasy. why, oh why am I not surprised?
Because it isn't a fantasy.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by kuresu, posted 02-27-2007 1:45 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by IrishRockhound, posted 02-27-2007 3:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 242 (387309)
02-27-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Heathen
02-27-2007 2:20 PM


Interesting how you fill a post with logical evidence to disprove the "Jesus-tomb" find, all the time insisting that there is no evidence to support the claims.. and then in one fell swoop you turn your back on this very reasoning and claim (without evidence)that he in fact floated up into the sky.
I can't prove in any empirical sense that Jesus rose any more than I can prove that Helen of Troy died. We don't assume that she is still alive because as far as we know, every person that has ever lived on the earth has died or will die. Obviously the testimony that Jesus rose again is going to be more difficult. But lets examine what we know. Christianity at its foundation has the resurrection as being an integral theme. The soteriology is paramount to the overall story. And the only way for its completion is through an acceptable propitiation.
We know from Biblical and extra biblical sources that Jesus was in fact an incredibly controversial figure at that time. Since Judea was under Roman occupation, it were the chief priests who collaborated with the Roman procurators. All parties involved knew that Jesus preached that He would raise from the dead and discussed how to secure the tomb with guards. Once it was discovered that the tomb was in fact empty, the charge fell on the guards as a story of Jesus' disciples must have come and stolen the body from inept Roman centurians. Why? Because they couldn't deny that His tomb was empty and had to come up with an alternative explanation. So the polemic of the disciple story, that they stole the body, was circulated. The fact that the Jewish leaders never denied that Jesus' tomb was empty, but only tried to explain it away is compelling evidence that the tomb was in fact empty.
That brings me to the tomb. We know where the tomb of Jesus was. This hasn't recently surfaced. We've known this since the day He died. He was laid to rest in what is now known as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is an early church that venerated the site by building a church surrounding the tomb.
Astounding. Simply astounding and completely indicative of the fundamentalist's reliance on dishonesty to maintain their beliefs
What is "dishonest" about believing that Jesus Christ, unquestionably the most popular man in the history of history, did in fact raise from the dead as He prophesied beforehand? Look, if you don't believe it, that;s on you. You'll have a chance to ask Him yourself whether or not He raised from the dead.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Heathen, posted 02-27-2007 2:20 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Heathen, posted 02-27-2007 8:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 33 by Nighttrain, posted 02-28-2007 2:11 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 02-28-2007 2:45 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 36 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 10:49 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 93 by honda33, posted 03-01-2007 2:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 242 (387377)
02-28-2007 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Chiroptera
02-27-2007 3:29 PM


I don't see what the problem is in general. So some people, like myself, doubt that Jesus existed. That is not denying that he existed -- to flat out deny that he existed one would have to have some sort of good evidence that he did not. Doubting that he existed is simply stating that whatever evidence that does exist is not compelling enough for those people to come to a firm conclusion that he did exist.
I can't speak for you Chiro, but what I can do is simply notice the fanfare when something turns up concerning Jesus. If it corroborates the gospel, there will be no fanfare. If something even as cryptic as the gospel of Judas turns up in Egypt or a tomb that they want to believe is Jesus' is found, respectable magazines like the National Geographic is quick to jump all over it. It shows the motivation of the authors and editors.
it is entirely reasonable to suppose that the Gospels might find their origins in the teaching of a particular person. That doesn't meant that the person existed, just that it is a possibility. The only way to determine that is if evidence for his existence does turn up.
For face value I certainly agree. But why isn't this used for other historical figures? Do we know any more or less that Hector the Trojan lived?
By the way, are you still due to be recalled to active duty? Is it imminent?
I don't remember telling anyone that I thought I was going to be recalled, but I obviously must have mentioned that at some point. It looks like Iran is content on not following the UN sanctions. I suspect that the US military might be ramping up forces soon. But I actually am set to go back to active duty, but it won't be with the Navy, it will be with the Coast Guard as of March 15, unless something goes wrong.
I, for one, don't wish to see you go, and I hope you return safely. I hope that you are able to continue your posting here in the future. Don't be shy if you can at least spare a few minutes to let us know that you are still well.
I will probably be out to sea in alternating two week intervals. I know they have internet access on the ships but I'm not entirely sure how much time I will have. Probably not nearly as much, but I will try to stay as active as I can. Thank you for the kind words

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 02-27-2007 3:29 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 02-28-2007 11:50 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 242 (387401)
02-28-2007 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Heathen
02-27-2007 8:51 PM


a compelling story. How are you sure it's the truth?
I'm gonna get a little existential for a minute. How do you anything is the truth? How can there be truth unless it is absolute? What predicates reality? What is, or what are, the defining principle(s) that constitute reality? Is it not possibly the apex of mankind’s endless questions, listed high on the totem with the other biggie, ”what is the meaning of life?’ Reality is the quantitative summation of all things true. But as the Roman Procurator famously and profoundly stated to Jesus, [it]"What is Truth"[/i]
What's dishonest is that you have such a double standard. On the one hand your are happy to cite lack of evidence as reason enough to iscount the "jesus tomb" story, while on the other you are able to aadmit lack of evidence while still maintaining your jesus myth.
Either you require evidence for your beliefs /opinions or you don't.
If you mix and match where it suits, it undermines your arguments and opinions
Everybody speaks about their beliefs in a manner indicative of the truth because no one espouses things they don't actually believe. The Tomb story is easy to debunk because there is tangible evidence that discounts it. But the fact remains that Jesus, the most historic figure in human history, is still missing. There is ample evidence aside from the Bible that not only did He exist, but that He was despised and thought of as a troublemaker which necessitated His crucifixion. What is hypocritical is that no one seems to concern themselves with whether Plato or Hector really existed. They take that on the value of the annals written about them. But not Jesus. If somebody really wanted to question Jesus' deity, they could question that with a reasonable amount of suspicion, ut not His personhood.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Fixed italics

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Heathen, posted 02-27-2007 8:51 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Wounded King, posted 02-28-2007 12:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 41 by Heathen, posted 02-28-2007 1:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 44 by RickJB, posted 02-28-2007 3:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 242 (387444)
02-28-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Nighttrain
02-28-2007 2:11 AM


Re: Was He or wasn`t He?
So controversial that only believers wrote of Him?
First of all, its amazing that any documents from that time have staved off decay. Aside from that, there are far more than just believers who have written about Jesus.
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king." -Flavius Josephus (Antiquity of the Jews: Book 20, Chapter 9:200)
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed." -Cornelius Tacitus (The Annals- 15:44)
"Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.
Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.
They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.
" -Pliny: Letters- 10:96
"In the year 3671 (90 BC) in the days of King Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel, when there arose a certain disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera. He lived at Bethlehem, in Judah.
Near his house dwelt a widow and her lovely and chaste daughter named Miriam. Miriam was betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of David, a man learned in the Torah and God-fearing.
At the close of a certain Sabbath, Joseph Pandera, attractive and like a warrior in appearance, having gazed lustfully upon Miriam, knocked upon the door of her room and betrayed her by pretending that he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan. Even so, she was amazed at this improper conduct and submitted only against her will.
Thereafter, when Yohanan came to her, Miriam expressed astonishment at behavior so foreign to his character. It was thus that they both came to know the crime of Joseph Pandera and the terrible mistake on the part of Miriam. Whereupon Yohanan went to Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah and related to him the tragic seduction. Lacking witnesses required for the punishment of Joseph Pandera, and Miriam being with child, Yohanan left for Babylonia.
Miriam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua, after her brother. This name later deteriorated to Yeshu. On the eighth day he was circumcised. When he was old enough the lad was taken by Miriam to the house of study to be instructed in the Jewish tradition.
One day Yeshu walked in front of the Sages with his head uncovered, showing shameful disrespect. At this, the discussion arose as to whether this behavior did not truly indicate that Yeshu was an illegitimate child and the son of a niddah. Moreover, the story tells that while the rabbis were discussing the Tractate Nezikin, he gave his own impudent interpretation of the law and in an ensuing debate he held that Moses could not be the greatest of the prophets if he had to receive counsel from Jethro. This led to further inquiry as to the antecedents of Yeshu, and it was discovered through Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah that he was the illegitimate son of Joseph Pandera. Miriam admitted it. After this became known, it was necessary for Yeshu to flee to Upper Galilee.
After King Jannaeus, his wife Helene ruled over all Israel. In the Temple was to be found the Foundation Stone on which were engraven the letters of God's Ineffable Name. Whoever learned the secret of the Name and its use would be able to do whatever he wished. Therefore, the Sages took measures so that no one should gain this knowledge. Lions of brass were bound to two iron pillars at the gate of the place of burnt offerings. Should anyone enter and learn the Name, when he left the lions would roar at him and immediately the valuable secret would be forgotten.
Yeshu came and learned the letters of the Name
(The Tetragrmmaton - YHWH); he wrote them upon the parchment which he placed in an open cut on his thigh and then drew the flesh over the parchment. As he left, the lions roared and he forgot the secret. But when he came to his house he reopened the cut in his flesh with a knife an lifted out the writing. Then he remembered and obtained the use of the letters.
He gathered about himself three hundred and ten young men of Israel and accused those who spoke ill of his birth of being people who desired greatness and power for themselves. Yeshu proclaimed, "I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah prophesied and said, 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.'" He quoted other messianic texts, insisting, "David my ancestor prophesied concerning me: 'The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.'"
The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought to him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed. Thereupon, they worshipped him as the Messiah, Son of the Highest.
When word of these happenings came to Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin decided to bring about the capture of Yeshu. They sent messengers, Annanui and Ahaziah, who, pretending to be his disciples, said that they brought him an invitation from the leaders of Jerusalem to visit them. Yeshu consented on condition the members of the Sanhedrin receive him as a lord. He started out toward Jerusalem and, arriving at Knob, acquired an ass on which he rode into Jerusalem, as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah.
The Sages bound him and led him before Queen Helene, with the accusation: "This man is a sorcerer and entices everyone." Yeshu replied, "The prophets long ago prophesied my coming: 'And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,' and I am he; but as for them, Scripture says 'Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly.'"
Queen Helene asked the Sages: "What he says, is it in your Torah?" They replied: "It is in our Torah, but it is not applicable to him, for it is in Scripture: 'And that prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.' He has not fulfilled the signs and conditions of the Messiah."
Yeshu spoke up: "Madam, I am the Messiah and I revive the dead." A dead body was brought in; he pronounced the letters of the Ineffable Name and the corpse came to life. The Queen was greatly moved and said: "This is a true sign." She reprimanded the Sages and sent them humiliated from her presence. Yeshu's dissident followers increased and there was controversy in Israel.
Yeshu went to Upper Galilee. the Sages came before the Queen, complaining that Yeshu practiced sorcery and was leading everyone astray. Therefore she sent Annanui and Ahaziah to fetch him.
The found him in Upper Galilee, proclaiming himself the Son of God. When they tried to take him there was a struggle, but Yeshu said to the men of Upper Galilee: "Wage no battle." He would prove himself by the power which came to him from his Father in heaven. He spoke the Ineffable Name over the birds of clay and they flew into the air. He spoke the same letters over a millstone that had been placed upon the waters. He sat in it and it floated like a boat. When they saw this the people marveled. At the behest of Yeshu, the emissaries departed and reported these wonders to the Queen. She trembled with astonishment.
Then the Sages selected a man named Judah Iskarioto and brought him to the Sanctuary where he learned the letters of the Ineffable Name as Yeshu had done.
When Yeshu was summoned before the queen, this time there were present also the Sages and Judah Iskarioto. Yeshu said: "It is spoken of me, 'I will ascend into heaven.'" He lifted his arms like the wings of an eagle and he flew between heaven and earth, to the amazement of everyone.
The elders asked Iskarioto to do likewise. He did, and flew toward heaven. Iskarioto attempted to force Yeshu down to earth but neither one of the two could prevail against the other for both had the use of the Ineffable Name. However, Iskarioto defiled Yeshu, so that they both lost their power and fell down to the earth, and in their condition of defilement the letters of the Ineffable Name escaped from them. Because of this deed of Judah they weep on the eve of the birth of Yeshu.
Yeshu was seized. His head was covered with a garment and he was smitten with pomegranate staves; but he could do nothing, for he no longer had the Ineffable Name.
Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns. There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with Yeshu to the region of Antioch; there Yeshu remained until the eve of the Passover.
Yeshu then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of the Name. That year the Passover came on a Sabbath day. On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by his disciples, came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass. Many bowed down before him. He entered the Temple with his three hundred and ten followers. One of them, Judah Iskarioto apprised the Sages that Yeshu was to be found in the Temple, that the disciples had taken a vow by the Ten Commandments not to reveal his identity but that he would point him out by bowing to him. So it was done and Yeshu was seized. Asked his name, he replied to the question by several times giving the names Mattai, Nakki, Buni, Netzer, each time with a verse quoted by him and a counter-verse by the Sages.
Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk, for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, "His body shall not remain all night upon the tree." They buried him outside the city.
On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden.
Queen Helene demanded, on threat of a severe penalty, that the body of Yeshu be shown to her within a period of three days. There was a great distress. When the keeper of the garden saw Rabbi Tanhuma walking in the field and lamenting over the ultimatum of the Queen, the gardener related what he had done, in order that Yeshu's followers should not steal the body and then claim that he had ascended into heaven. The Sages removed the body, tied it to the tail of a horse and transported it to the Queen, with the words, "This is Yeshu who is said to have ascended to heaven." Realizing that Yeshu was a false prophet who enticed the people and led them astray, she mocked the followers but praised the Sages.
The disciples went out among the nations--three went to the mountains of Ararat, three to Armenia, three to Rome and three to the kingdoms buy the sea, They deluded the people, but ultimately they were slain.
The erring followers amongst Israel said: "You have slain the Messiah of the Lord." The Israelites answered: "You have believed in a false prophet." There was endless strife and discord for thirty years.
The Sages desired to separate from Israel those who continued to claim Yeshu as the Messiah, and they called upon a greatly learned man, Simeon Kepha, for help. Simeon went to Antioch, main city of the Nazarenes and proclaimed toe them: "I am the disciple of Yeshu. He has sent me to show you the way. I will give you a sign as Yeshu has done."
Simeon, having gained the secret of the Ineffable Name, healed a leper and a lame man by means of it and thus found acceptance as a true disciple. He told them that Yeshu was in heaven, at the right hand of his Father, in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1. He added that Yeshu desired that they separate themselves from the Jews and no longer follow their practices, as Isaiah had said, "Your new moons and your feasts my soul abhorreth." They were now to observe the first day of the week instead of the seventh, the Resurrection instead of the Passover, the Ascension into Heaven instead of the Feast of Weeks, the finding of the Cross instead of the New Year, the Feast of the Circumcision instead of the Day of Atonement, the New Year instead of Chanukah; they were to be indifferent with regard to circumcision and the dietary laws. Also they were to follow the teaching of turning the right if smitten on the left and the meek acceptance of suffering. All these new ordinances which Simeon Kepha (or Paul, as he was known to the Nazarenes) taught them were really meant to separate these Nazarenes from the people of Israel and to bring the internal strife to an end."
-Toledoth Yeshu
Therefore, there is ample evidence to assume that not only was Jesus an actual figure in human history, but that He was also a controversial figure known in the world at that time.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Nighttrain, posted 02-28-2007 2:11 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RickJB, posted 02-28-2007 3:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 59 by Nighttrain, posted 02-28-2007 9:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 242 (387466)
02-28-2007 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
02-28-2007 2:45 AM


The only extra-Biblical source I know of that mentions Jesus in the context of his times is the contested reference in Josephus. Even if it is partly genuine Jesus is still not that important a figure, mentioned only in passing.
There are quite a few references of Jesus just by Josephus alone. The one you are referring looks suspicious to me to. The others are not. Secondly, there are far more references to Jesus than only Josephus. I have listed four sources, but there are many others.
This probably isn't true. It isn't even in all the Gospels. Likely the author of "Matthew" (whoever he was) added the guards.
Every gospel mentions the resurrection of Jesus. As for the guards, why wouldn't His tomb be guarded since He claimed beforehand that He would rise again. Obviously they didn't believe He would rise from the dead, but they would have thought that His disciples would steal the body so as to give more credence to His resurrection.
We don't have any accounts from non-Christian sources or even true contemporary sources. We don't even have a clear reference to the Empty Tomb story prior to Mark (itself written about 30 years after the events and likely second-hand at best). While the resurrection might have been important to Christianity the story isn't mentioned before then and the accounts we have don't clearly match - seeming instead to be elaborated and developed from whatever origin it had (which may not be any factual basis).
First of all, we do have contemporary writings. The Sanhedrin recorded His death.
“On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ”He is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything on his behalf, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.”
Therefore, we see that Jesus was crucified for supposedly leading others away from the Law and for sorcery. This corroborates the gospels magnificently as we see extra-biblical evidence of His miracles and of His teachings, even though He did NOT teach against the Law.
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, ”Cursed is every one who hangs from a tree.” -Galatians 3:13
As for Josephus, he was born 3 years after His death and resurrection, making Him contemporary with Mark, Luke, John, and Matthew. Why do you select what is authoritative an what is not?
There is far more evidence to suggest that not only Jesus existed, but that He was a controversial figure, respected by many, despised by many more, and that He was martyred on that account.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 02-28-2007 2:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by kuresu, posted 02-28-2007 4:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 50 by jar, posted 02-28-2007 4:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2007 5:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 02-28-2007 5:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 242 (387503)
02-28-2007 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by anastasia
02-28-2007 10:49 AM


I have a hard time understanding where researchers draw the lines in regards to Biblical historicity. Never mind the resurrection.
Agreed.
No one can do much about proving or unproving that.
No, we can't. The best we can do is postulate as much evidence and testimony, both pro and con, and try to ascertain a final answer.
[qs]Personally I believe in a corporeal resurrection but who cares? Can anyone be sure that any bones found in a tomb are from the original and only body ever placed in that tomb?[qs] Like I was saying to Creavolution, not unless you had their DNA on file. Its the same with finding DNA at a crime scene. Its useless unless somebody is already in their database. Because if the criminal does not leave DNA evidence ever again, you won't be able to find them. And obviously since there was no DNA profiling in those days, there is no way to 100% verify that even a person inside a tomb is who is alleged to be buried there. Would it be reasonable to assume that the bones belonged to said person? Yes, it would. But at some point it will boil down to an informed faith.
It is not that I care one way or another whether Jesus had a wife or son or brothers. Just, 'historically' He didn't.
Historically he did have brothers-- most notably was James who has a book in the Bible named after him.
I need to know how there can be proof of the Biblical Jesus, without following the Biblical account. It is the usual anti-fundy arguement reversed; if some parts of the Bible are suspect, how does one decide which parts aren't?
Basically. Or they take a completely ambiguous personality from the distant past based on a few obscure passages, and for some reason, that is well-attested, but some how Jesus may not have even exotsed. Its quite stultifying really.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 10:49 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 8:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 242 (387523)
02-28-2007 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Heathen
02-28-2007 1:02 PM


Deep stuff indeed, but not one word of it explains why you require evidence for some deicions but not for others. You've basically said "well i don't know if anything is real, so I'm going to decide that this is" meaningless.
No, what I've done is shown that people will invariably believe in things with less evidence and less corroboration. The fact is that a lot that was written about Jesus has survived decay-- much more so than many of other historical figures. And yet somehow, the historicity of Jesus is always in question. Why is that?
My second reason for getting existential and somewhat metaphysical was that "proof" is seldom seen or understood because it would require for us to have been present. We need to be careful what we call "proof."
Did he in FACT exist?
("the most historic figure in human history"..... what are you on about?)
The most influential figure of all time is inarguably Jesus of Nazareth. No other person has been spoken about more than He. Heck, he was the reason why time was divided between ancient and contemporary time.
What evidence? it's clear that Jesus was a common name.
First of all, the name "Jesus" is a Latin rendering which was not in any sense common. Do you mean Yehoshua, Yeshu, Yeshua, etc?
The teachings of Plato or hector are not so controversial. People do not live or die because of their belief in Plato or hector.
What does that have to do with the historical value? It doesn't. We aren't even getting into His deity right now. Right now you appear to be questioning his existence.
I don't question that there was someone called jesus running about in Nazereth/judea all those years ago, there may have been hundreds, thousands maybe.
The question of his divinity is more, much more than the side issue you seem to make of it here
I've already shown that extra-biblical evidence corroborates that some mystical attributes were assigned to Jesus. Such as healing the sick and other miracles. The Sanhedrin even speaks of him being crucified for sorcery. That means he was either a diviner or he was who he said was, the Son of the living God. How did this get attributed to him if there was not at least a measure of some crazy things going on?

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Heathen, posted 02-28-2007 1:02 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 10:42 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 69 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2007 11:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 73 by Heathen, posted 03-01-2007 10:39 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 242 (387583)
03-01-2007 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by arachnophilia
02-28-2007 4:47 PM


Motivations
confirming two dubious artifacts with each other is shaky at best. however, i wanted to point out something interesting: finding a shroud and a tomb separately isn't especially a big deal. first century jews typically buried people in shrouds until they decomposed, and then moved their bones to ossuaries. what they did with the shrouds afterwards, i don't know, and it might vary from case to case.
This doesn't seem to make much sense to me since decomposing bodies are considered unclean. Why would they go back in to a tomb and wait for them to be rotting to only then place them where they could have been placed from the beginning, an ossuary?
i suspect the shroud is a forgery, and the tomb is being misrepresented.
I concur with you on both counts.
jesus is supposed to have been buried in jerusalem, according to the nt. but i agree, it doesn't make sense.
Well, after juxtaposing Jewish law and the topography of Israel, it would make most sense that he be buried in Jerusalem. Reason: Because bodies have to be in the ground no later than a 24 hour period, and Nazareth was more than a days trek in those days.
i think it might be a desperate attempt to validate some kind of belief. the last program they did went to great lengths to support the exodus, misrepresenting everything they could in the process to make things work.
I read about this too. First of all, I believe the in the veracity of the exodus, but conducting feasibility tests does not in one or the other prove the exodus occurred.
i suspect this is no different. jesus's body might disprove some christianity, but it would at least verify that he was a real person. this seems like another gambit, to me.
Perhaps usurping Christianity is the motivation. Afterall, most Jews believe that Yeshua was a real person connected to their history. The only thing that sets him apart is that he is one of a handful of false messiah's to them.
but i could be wrong. james cameron strikes me a christian, but simcha jacobovici is an israeli jew. so perhaps it's a divided attempt to prove to things, from very strange bedfellows.
On March 4th we might uncover what their motivations are because that's when the Discovery channel is going to air their documentary "The Lost Tomb of Jesus."

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2007 4:47 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by arachnophilia, posted 03-01-2007 12:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 83 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 12:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 242 (387594)
03-01-2007 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by kuresu
02-28-2007 4:56 PM


Decrees
um, wasn't jesus executed by crucifixion? I'm wondering, because in your source, it claims:
quote:
On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged
He is going forth to be stoned
he was hanged
Secondly, why the change in execution? First it's claimed he was hung, then that he will be stoned, and then reverts back to "he was hanged".
Because it appears that he was set to be hanged according to two sources. The first by what you quoted from, taken from the Sanhedrin, and the second from the Toledoth Yeshu, which says:
"Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke..."
But then again, this account gives conflicting views, possibly conflating two or more accounts, because it attempts to explain Jesus' disposition when it says:
"He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk, for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, "His body shall not remain all night upon the tree."
But just prior it also says:
"Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns.
So, was he affixed to a pillar or a tree or a carob-stalk, or all three at some point? All three methods constitute hanging, because to hang means to suspend. Is it possible that He was set to die by the hands of the Pharisees by stoning and/or traditional hanging before they opted for the Romans to initiate their effective method of crucifixion?
How accurate is this translation? Because if the jesus of the bible was crucified, but this jesus was hanged, something tells me they aren't the same one.
The website that I use for this comes from a strict sect of Judaism where the translation is of the Talmud is paramount.
Or did the authors of the bible just seriously screw up the execution account?
Can that many authors contemporaneously affiliated with Jesus all get it wrong? Doubtful. Especially since this extra-biblical document records the same account, plus a few extraneous details.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by kuresu, posted 02-28-2007 4:56 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 12:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 242 (387637)
03-01-2007 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
02-28-2007 5:59 PM


Jesus: Is he, or isn't he?
I am not counting references to Jesus. I am only counting those that could potentially support your claim that Jesus was a controversial figure in his own time. Tacitus, for instance only says that Jesus was the originator of Christianity. That is why I did not say "references to Jesus" but "...in the context of his time".
Those are in the context of His time. For starters, anywhere from 75-90% were illiterate anywhere in the world. Only the privileged few had the fortune to study. In Israel during that time, it were the Chief Priests who are akin to modern day Rhodes scholars. There were few of them. Secondly, the fact that time destroys these original manuscripts can't be taken too lightly. So the fact that He was written about as many times as we have found documentation posits that Jesus was written about many times.
As for Tacitus, I'm sorry, but that is considered contemporary in the grand scheme of time. Somehow that a man was completely invented made it to the ears of the world populace? I don't think so. It would be like us denying the existence, veracity, or historicity of Abraham Lincoln. It would be futile because his existence would be so patently obvious.
But NOT all mention guards! Your remaining sentence is circular - having tried to use the supposed guards as evidence that the authorities knew of the claims that Jesus would rise from the dead now you are trying to use the assertion that the authorities knew of claims that Jesus would rise form the dead to support your claims of guards ! Sorry, but you can't use your conclusion to support your supposed evidence !
That's what is annotated in the gospels-- that the Pharisees knew of his message, knew that he claimed he would rise from the dead. That's why they requested that Roman centurians stand sentinel. They said (paraphrasing), "Before he died, that deceiver said that he would rise again after three days. Place a guard by his tomb so that his followers will not steal away the body. If they do, his last deception will be worse than the first."
Secondly, Matthew was the second gospel written. Why only Matthew's insertion? We already know that Matthew's gospel is the most detailed of all the gospels, so why would this be any more or less extraneous than the previous thing written?
The piece you quote is found in the Babylonian Talmud. It probably dates form the 2nd Century, not the 1st.
Substantiate your claim, please.
If it is a contemporay account and an offical record as you claim - unlikely as it is
How can you believe in Occam's Razor and say that Jesus was not an actual figure in human history? Seriously. What makes you think that such a man could be completely invented successfully? What other man was invented so successfully that it fooled the world? You could question his deity. That would be reasonable. You could even say that many things about him may have been embellished. That would be reasonable. But that he never existed, whatsoever? That defies plausibility.
which is it ?
A late and inaccurate account of Jesus ?
A contemporary and accurate account of Jesus' execution, contradicting the Gospels ?
An account of the execution of someone else entirely ?
There is no inaccuracy that could pin down either way. And whatever inconsistencies you believe exist, surely you would know of the multitude of other facts that fit perfectly. But you don't want to mention those. Really, would it be so hard for you to at least concede that he was a real person? Claim, at least, like the majority of the Jews that he was just another failed messiah. But please, don't subvert your own propriety.
quote:
Therefore, we see that Jesus was crucified for supposedly leading others away from the Law and for sorcery. This corroborates the gospels magnificently as we see extra-biblical evidence of His miracles and of His teachings, even though He did NOT teach against the Law.
Except for the 40 days searching for witnesses for his defence prior to the ececution.
The disciples may not have known about it. Jesus did-- as he predicted to die when the Passover was to come. No one really contends with this, except staunch atheists who refuse to allow even a toe inside the door. What more moderate atheists say is that, yes, he died during this time, but that he made it a self-fulfilling prophecy. And by coming in to town riding on the colt through the gate, that he knew this would not have been tolerated by the Chief Priests. So he, they say, made his own martyrdom.
Or the execution being carried out by Jewish authorities and not Roman
But every other historian does mention it. Do you believe that Pontious Pilate never existed either? Because he's mentioned all over the place. So was Ananias who was the Chief Priest the year Jesus was crucified. Do you believe in his existence?
Or being stoned and hanged instead of being crucified.
This was the edict. This was the charge set on him. It doesn't mean it ever came to fruition.
If Josephus was born after the event - which he was - then he cannot be a true contemporary of the event. I cannot answer your question because it makes no sense.
Here's the point I'm making: Josephus was a historian and a Pharisee. He would know better than any one else whether or not Jesus existed. I mean, Charles Lindbergh died three years before my birth. Can I not know whether or not he was an actual person? Of course I can. And if you say that we can only trust things that are contemporaneous for us, then you must jettison ALL of history.
As your link demonstrates the evidence is so short that Christian apologists are redueced to desparate efforts like "the origin of the Christian movement in Jerusalem would have been impossible without the empty tomb." Which is simply untrue. I could point out that Elvis' tomb is occupied but people have still claimed to have seen him after his death.
Yeah, 'cause every one takes that seriously. Last time I checked he was on an island in the Caribbean living large with Biggie and Tupac. There is no way Christianity would have survived without the body being gone, because like all bad rumors, without any real basis, it will fizzle out and die.
We really do not know much about that period because we do not have any truly reliable accounts - or any reasonably detailed non-Christian accounts to balance what we have from the later Christian sources.
Then you must discount all of history that predates this time with the same imperiousness.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 02-28-2007 5:59 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 03-01-2007 5:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2007 8:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 242 (387742)
03-02-2007 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by anastasia
02-28-2007 8:34 PM


I wanted to ask your view on this. I say Jesus did not have brothers, purely because that is the teaching of the RCC stemming from the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
I know about James Adelphos, and Jude, and have even heard that there were sisters. Jude refers to himself as the brother of James, but not Jesus. I think this is a case where passages can be translated literally, or not. But it depends who you ask.
We talked about a little on chat the other night but we're cut short. To answer, I think the non-biblical, apocryphal tradition of perpetual virginity is a part of the deification of Mary. I don't believe that is substantiated at all, especially when the Bible, which is the foundation of the RCC, says differently. The two cannot both be true at the same time.
As for Jesus brothers', there is not exactly a litany of scriptures on the subject, but enough to know that he had brothers and sisters.
"Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor." -Matthew 13:54-57
As you said, Jude (Judas), was the brother of James which invariably made him the brother of Jesus. Obviously, all his brothers and sisters are subsequent to the virgin birth, which does not impact Mary's virginity.
But although he had siblings and parents, he expands on the meaning of family in spiritual matters articulated in this verse:
"Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother." -Mark 3:31-35

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 8:34 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by anastasia, posted 03-02-2007 7:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 242 (387835)
03-03-2007 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by anastasia
02-28-2007 10:42 PM


Beyond reproach
I can believe the Bible until I have a good reason not to. I don't need evidence to believe, I need evidence to stop believing.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 10:42 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 242 (387836)
03-03-2007 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by arachnophilia
03-01-2007 12:13 PM


Re: Motivations
i should have been more clear. it's when they've completely decomposed, and only bones are left.
This makes more sense, and looking at it without injecting bias, it is possible that it be Jesus' ossuary. I'm just concerned with how ineloquently they have reasoned why we would hang it all up on such a shoddy investigation.
if there was a jesus ossuary, it would have been carried back to nazareth for permanent burial. heck, during the exodus, they did this with jacob's bones, right?
Yes, very likely. And what would be even more likely is that the whole area would have known about it in those days because he was such a prolific and infamous figure in those days.
to be fair, this program at least gave some screen time to his critics -- one of whom basically called him a crackpot to his face.
I know very little about him, so for me to make any presuppositions at this point would be unfair and slanderous. I can, however, critique this latest work. What I've seen so far is very unconvincing. On the other hand, I don't doubt that he has a penchant for these kinds of exaggerations

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by arachnophilia, posted 03-01-2007 12:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by arachnophilia, posted 03-04-2007 12:34 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024