Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus Tomb Found
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 61 of 242 (387511)
02-28-2007 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by anastasia
02-28-2007 7:07 PM


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.
i am not aware of such a practice. perhaps someone else might know better?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 7:07 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 9:56 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 150 by ramoss, posted 03-04-2007 1:47 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 62 of 242 (387515)
02-28-2007 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by anastasia
02-28-2007 8:34 PM


jesus's family
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.
no offense meant, but that's strictly catholic dogma. it has no foundation in the bible, and actually requires misreading a number of texts.
quote:
Mat 13:5516 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?
this is clearly about joshua ("jesus") and his family: joseph (the carpenter), and mariam ("mary") are his parents. he has brothers named jacob ("james"), joseph ("joses"), simeon ("simon"), and judah ("judas"), and he has sisters too.
I know about James Adelphos, and Jude, and have even heard that there were sisters.
i assume you're referring to the above passage, since the greek word adelphoi appears. but they are clearly talking about his lower class family, from context, and "adelphoi" DOES mean "brother" quite literally.
Jude refers to himself as the brother of James, but not Jesus.
these don't appear to be the disciples. that they're the same names as some is not surprising. in the 12, we have two simons ("peter" and "zealotes"), at least two (maybe three! four?) judases ("iscariot," judas didymos thomas, the brother of james, and "st. jude"), two jameses, etc. pretty common names, really.
but THIS group in the verse above appears to be about the family of jesus.


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 65 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 10:11 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 63 of 242 (387516)
02-28-2007 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by arachnophilia
02-28-2007 9:30 PM


This law is confirmed and elaborated in the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin: people could be executed either by stoning, burning, decapitation, or strangulation (7.1a-c), but whichever it was, when the crime was blasphemy (6.4h-i) the corpse was then hung on a pole for display, apparently like a slab of meat, which resembled a crucifixion (6.4n-p). And whether executed or not, a body had to be taken down by sunset (6.4q-r), for "whoever allows his deceased to stay unburied overnight transgresses a negative commandment" (6.5c), unless one needs that time "to honor the corpse," e.g. to get the necessary shroud and bier (6.5d; 47a). There is no doubt, then, that taking the bodies of the condemned down by sunset was a fundamental commandment that was sacrilege to disobey. Though burial could be legally postponed, for reasons like those just mentioned (as well as for holy days), a body could not remain hanging into the night.
Here is what I referred to, arach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2007 9:30 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2007 10:08 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 71 by Brian, posted 03-01-2007 9:31 AM anastasia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 64 of 242 (387521)
02-28-2007 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by anastasia
02-28-2007 9:56 PM


thank you, i didn't know that. it provides some much needed context to the original passage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 9:56 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 10:18 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 65 of 242 (387522)
02-28-2007 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by arachnophilia
02-28-2007 9:52 PM


Re: jesus's family
arachnophilia writes:
no offense meant, but that's strictly catholic dogma. it has no foundation in the bible, and actually requires misreading a number of texts.
It's ok. Nemesis and I were just discussing this in chat. He will find it interesting, I am sure.
The Catholic dogma is based largely on the Protoevangelium of James. It has a major following particularly in the Eastern churches, which is where I was raised, but has been proclaimed by the universal church in the 16 century or so.
All references which may contradict this in scripture are thought to be of step-brothers.
Maybe a stretch, but that's how it goes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2007 9:52 PM arachnophilia has not 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

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 67 of 242 (387524)
02-28-2007 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by arachnophilia
02-28-2007 10:08 PM


arach writes:
thank you, i didn't know that. it provides some much needed context to the original passage.
Neither did I, to be honest. Just stumbled upon it by accident while looking something else up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 02-28-2007 10:08 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 68 of 242 (387531)
02-28-2007 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Hyroglyphx
02-28-2007 10:14 PM


Don't mind me, but I think you are not answering Creavolution's question.
He says; why do you require evidence for the tomb of Jesus, and NOT require evidence for His resurrection?
The burden of proof is on the side of the scientists to prove that the tomb in question is of the same Biblical Jesus.
This might sound really dumb, but it is a question of having enough evidence to disprove what you believe, and to disprove the Bible.
So, while there is no physical evidence for the Biblical Jesus, the Bible can be believed.
There has to be good evidence to NOT believe that the Bible was a true account. If not, it still stands as such (not that one can't think critically).
I know it is a tough sell, but I personally feel similar to how I think you meant it.
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. Evidence of any empirical kind does not make belief anyway. It makes knowledge, and there is no knowledge that this tomb is the real deal.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-28-2007 10:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Nighttrain, posted 03-01-2007 1:53 AM anastasia has not replied
 Message 72 by Brian, posted 03-01-2007 9:33 AM anastasia has not replied
 Message 74 by Heathen, posted 03-01-2007 10:48 AM anastasia has replied
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-03-2007 2:12 AM anastasia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 69 of 242 (387534)
02-28-2007 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Hyroglyphx
02-28-2007 10:14 PM


First of all, the name "Jesus" is a Latin rendering which was not in any sense common. Do you mean Yehoshua, Yeshu, Yeshua, etc?
they're interchangeable.
there are at least two other biblical books named after a jesus, the book of joshua, and the apocryphal book of the wisdom of jesus ben sirach ("ecclesiasticus"). there's elymas bar jesus in acts, and jesus ben ananias who prophecied about the destruction of jerusalem around the time of the rebellion against rome in 66.
it was a pretty common name.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-28-2007 10:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 70 of 242 (387541)
03-01-2007 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by anastasia
02-28-2007 10:42 PM


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
And this from a member of the most-educated generation in the history of the world. Sigh.

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

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 71 of 242 (387564)
03-01-2007 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by anastasia
02-28-2007 9:56 PM


During the occupation of Israel by the Romans, was the Sanhedrin allowed to pass a death sentence on anyone?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 9:56 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 11:35 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 72 of 242 (387565)
03-01-2007 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by anastasia
02-28-2007 10:42 PM


The burden of proof is on the side of the scientists to prove that the tomb in question is of the same Biblical Jesus.
How could they possibly do this?
Brian.

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

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 73 of 242 (387573)
03-01-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Hyroglyphx
02-28-2007 10:14 PM


NJ writes:
The most influential figure of all time is inarguably Jesus of Nazareth. No other person has been spoken about more than He. Heck,
every religion has it influential figures, that are talked about by millions of people every day. Mohammed, Buddha, Vishnu....which one's existed? which ones were divine?
NJ writes:
he was the reason why time was divided between ancient and contemporary time
There are many calendars in the world. the Christian one just so happens to be dominant.
NJ writes:
First of all, the name "Jesus" is a Latin rendering which was not in any sense common. Do you mean Yehoshua, Yeshu, Yeshua, etc?
yes. Jesus, or Joshua or... or... whatever he was called in his local, native tongue was a common name.
NJ writes:
creavolution writes:
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.
And I didn't mention deity in that sentance, merely pointing out one reason why Jesus may be talked about so much, and why his existance may and should be called into question.
If the people on this planet are going to give themselves t this belief system totally (as, I suspect Xians would prefer) shouldn't we at least be CERTAIN that this guy existed? Shouldn't we move to erase ALL doubt? Then, the question of his divinity should be addressed.
NJ writes:
I've already shown that extra-biblical evidence corroborates
from what I can see your extra biblical evidence has been rebutted. It seems The Sanhedrin Plainly appears to be talking about a diferent person (with the same name) and a different execution.
there's plenty of "corroboration" for people performing faith healings every day, jesus appearing on toast, Mary appearing on an underpass wall.. all reported, possible in many sources. Does it make it any more believable just because it appears in 4 newspapers rather than one? No.
If the source is dodgy, then no matter how many times you reprint it it remains dodgy.
Edited by Creavolution, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-28-2007 10:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 74 of 242 (387574)
03-01-2007 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by anastasia
02-28-2007 10:42 PM


ana writes:
He says; why do you require evidence for the tomb of Jesus, and NOT require evidence for His resurrection?
Yes, that is what I meant before NJ began his dodge and weave manoeuvre..
ana writes:
So, while there is no physical evidence for the Biblical Jesus, the Bible can be believed.
and why not the Qu'ran? why not any other religious text? why not Lord of the Rings? Why not James Joyce's Ulysses?
You have left the realm of reasonable debate with this sentance.
ana writes:
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.
So what 'evidence' do you have that stops you believing in faeries? leprechauns? any other myths?
ana writes:
there is no knowledge that this tomb is the real deal.
It is interesting that you cannot apply this reasoning to belief in Christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 10:42 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 11:47 AM Heathen has replied
 Message 79 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 11:55 AM Heathen has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 75 of 242 (387580)
03-01-2007 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Brian
03-01-2007 9:31 AM


Brian writes:
During the occupation of Israel by the Romans, was the Sanhedrin allowed to pass a death sentence on anyone?
I think not, Brian. I am not sure where you are going with this, but be aware that I am not of the same opinion as nj is regarding the Sanhedrin text.
You asked as well how the tomb could possibly be proven to be that of Jesus. Good question, I am not sure that it could be. What I would say is, if a tomb were found that matched the Biblcal account AND had bones in it I would be more likely to believe its authenticity, and to question the resurrection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Brian, posted 03-01-2007 9:31 AM Brian 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