Jesus Tomb Found

The thing is, from a historical perspective, Cameron's crap is infinitly more plausible than the Gospel crap! Brian.

well, 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 is not to back up either. i suspect the shroud is a forgery, and the tomb is being misrepresented. jesus is supposed to have been buried in jerusalem, according to the nt. but i agree, it doesn't make sense. jacobovici does not appear to think it's a forgery. even though we know who forged it and when. no, actually, i'm not so sure. 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. and that included the bible -- a number of objections to the program were biblical. they wanted for it to be real so badly that they were willing to betray the very source they were defending.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.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.

---

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. 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. 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 3:13As 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

um, wasn't jesus executed by crucifixion? I'm wondering, because in your source, it claims: 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". I'm not positive if the phrase should have that comma. (it doesn't in the original, I added it).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.Or did the authors of the bible just seriously screw up the execution account?

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John AdamsWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

You need to actually read that in context. That old chestnut gets posted on way too many apologists sites without including the context.It is a section where Rabbis are arguing about behavior. It is given not as historical account but rather as an example of a "What if". It is NOT a reference to be relied on.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

well, that's because he's specifically seeking to demonstrate that things like the exodus are plausible.but time-travelling cyborgs, who have to travel naked? superintelligent underwater space aliens who control the world's oceans? jamie-lee curtis in her undies being sexy? the ship that could never sink hitting and iceberg and sinking... oh wait, i guess that one's kinda plausible.

---

quote:

---

“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.”

---

the sanhedrin wrote in hebrew. jesus's name in hebrew is yehoshua. "yeshu" is the aramaic derivation, a nickname, but in hebrew "yeshu" is '' and abbreviation for — yemach shemu v'zikro, meaning "erase his name and memory."basically, it's reserved for criminals who commit such greivous sins that their name is blotted out. ie: sorcery. you'll also note some inconsistencies with the passage and jesus. jesus's trial did not last 40 days. he was neither hanged nor stoned, he was crucified by romans, not by the sanhedrin.Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle

---

quote:

---

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.

---

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".

quote:

---

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.

---

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 !

quote:

---

First of all, we do have contemporary writings. The Sanhedrin recorded His death.

---

The piece you quote is found in the Babylonian Talmud. It probably dates form the 2nd Century, not the 1st. If it is a contemporay account and an offical record as you claim - unlikely as it is - then it must be consdiered an accurate account fo the events, at least where matters of fact are concerned. Which indicates that either the Gospel accounts contain significant erorrs - or it is about a different person altogether.So 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 ?None of these seem to offer much help to your position.(See here for more Talmud )

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.
Or the execution being carried out by Jewish authorities and not Roman
Or being stoned and hanged instead of being crucified.

quote:

---

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?

---

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.

quote:

---

here 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.

---

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. 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.

I haven't bothered to read the thread but why in the world would a Biblical fundie expect to find the body of Jesus anywhere on earth??

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Yes, could have a comma; not there though. "But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged". I may be able to answer this part, arachnophilia might know better; according to Jewish law, a man would be first put to death, and THEN hanged, like for display. So there is no contradiction in using both.Obviously, Jesus still wasn't stoned, and I don't know why the sentence is in past tense and then the next is in future tense.

AMEN BROTHER! PREACH IT!

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Agreed. 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. Historically he did have brothers-- most notably was James who has a book in the Bible named after him. 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

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.

Shame on you, Juggs, shame, for resurrecting these hoary old PRATTs. As if they haven`t been done to death in every conceivable (side pun) way. I thought you might introduce 'new' evidence for extra-biblical sources, but no, the same old nonsense arises. Try this site for a summary of the 'evidence', including a couple I haven`t come across before. Pandera/Panthera gets a good going-over, as well.http://www.mystae.com/...ed/reflections/messiah/sources.html

When you dip into the subject of the 'brothers' of Jesus, you have to explain what`s going on with the Desposyni. Were the Roman authorities so gullible that they accepted the statements of Jesus' kin without checking the records?