Jesus Tomb Found

I know that, Mod. I was talking about comparing alternative biographies of Jesus, and I do not know that the Qu'ran has anything to add to the Biblical account. Far as I knew, they only clash over the resurrection.

I hope I didn't confuse. I have never heard that Lent had any assosciation with the writings of the Sanhedrin.It was not originally 40 days, but sometimes a few days, or with a great fast of 40 hours.When it did become 40 days it is sometimes said to commemorate the 40 hours Jesus spent in the tomb, or the time He wandered in the desert.I just thought it was interesting to think about spiritually maybe, not historically.

Obviously, the supporters of the Jesus' tomb have no DNA evidence. You are the only one 'lost' in trying to understand the beliefs of one single solitary person who has said;I don't need evidence to believe; I need evidence to stop believing. No evidence is required for ANY belief. There may be reasons to believe, but as soon as there is evidence, it is not a belief.If you knew for a FACT that Jesus rose, would you 'believe'? You might contest the fact, you might deny the fact, you might declare that it is a scam. Anyone can believe whatever they like regardless of facts. Good, start a thread on that. I don't give a crap about an after-life, the story of Jesus is not poorly understood, I am living quite well with the reality of my own life, and you can't assume a belief.Now please, I can't possibly be this fascinating. It is not such a strange thing that you should get all topsy-turvy because I say I need more data to not believe the Biblical account of the death of Jesus. Many people would, and they don't even have to be christian.What kind of evidence would YOU need to believe someone rose from the dead? Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

The scientists and doctors would have o do what, exactly? Witness the event, and verify that the person was truly dead?Even then, how would you 'know' the person rose? How would you know that it was not some type of possession by out side alien forces? How would you know the doctor who pronounced death was right? Is there any way to know something like for sure 100%, or would you have to trust the evidence? I think nem and I agree enough that I can say, if there is no very good evidence to prove that the bodies in the tomb are of the same Jesus and the same Mary, there would be no reason to change what the gospels have said about the mode of Jesus' death.This is not for me a problem of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. That is how the reporters are playing it; will Christianity crumble if Jesus did not rise? etc. It is not even about blind belief, and even if I was not a follower of Jesus, I would have the same questions. Namely, where is the corroborating evidence for a Jesus with a family plot in Jerusalem, a wife, a child, etc? I think if we are looking for evidence of an historical Jesus of the Bible, the very least we could do is find a Jesus who matches the Bible. The Bible might not be true, sure, but it is hard to know who could be the real Jesus outside of that account. If the Bible is wrong, Jesus could have gone anywhere, had 15 children, 3 wives, who knows. I think the logical thing to do is look at extra-Biblcal evidence, and I think also that the supporters of the Jesus' tomb are banking a little too heavily on the idea that most of the public is already exposed to and unsurprised by the thought of a married Jesus, despite the fact that there is not much in the way of evidence.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I understand, Modulous, but I don't think that what the Qu'ran says about Jesus is considered by any means to be a contemporary historic text with possibilities of alternate Jesus bios. Folks around here don't accept texts beyond the 1st century or so. Not even Christians and Bible scholars agree on Jesus' divinity, whether He was of the line of David, how He ascended, or what he said. There are christians even here who have differeing views on these things, but they all work with the same historic documents. Maybe. I don't think either statement is very much what I wanted to say. I do need evidence of a kind to believe, but in regards to this topic alone, I need better evidence to doubt my beliefs. This is the double standard that Crea did not understand; why do I not need the same historic evidence to believe in the first place? I guess the only answer is that for some of us, the Bible is the historic evidence, and for others, the tale that needs to be evidenced. But see, I am not talking about which faith to believe, I am talking about which story of Jesus' death to believe. I am not a student of the Qu'ran, and I have no idea which parts of that are true to reality. If we were talking about the flood, would it be wrong to say that while there was no evidence to the contrary, the Bible was taken as history? In that case, finding no evidence of a flood is in itself evidence. Having no evidence of Jesus existance is not in itself evidence that He did not exist. Now, we might have evidence of Jesus' existance, but are not sure if it IS Jesus. Thus, the Bible is not yet credited or discredited.Now, if you ask me why, since we have evidence of a real life Mohammed, I will not be more inclined to follow his teachings than I would those of the supposed Jesus, that is different. I could ask you or Crea the same thing. Knowing for sure that Joseph Smith existed, or Martin Luther, or the church fathers, or Franz, or Knorr, or Kant , or anyone, does not compel me to believe what they say, or to agree with their philosophies. I agree with the teachings of Jesus, I agree with certain teachings about Jesus, and these things which I agree with are outside the scope of evidence, but pertain to the after-life, and how to live this life. I don't know what more to say. I don't agree with the teachings of Mohammed about Jesus, and some christians DO agree with some of them, so even if Mohammed was christian I would not agree with him.

That is quite silly; maybe you are being humorous? Almost every teaching about Jesus says He was 100% man. We don't even know if normal human DNA is of divine origin, how could we prove divine DNA? Of course, you could check for unusual DNA, but if there was anything so unusual found, it probably would have been reported.

There are so many ways to answer this.On the one hand, I don't require evidence for this, because how would I get it? Remember the thread; 'what would a man have to do to prove he was God'? I don't think there was a real answer. It would come down to belief.On the other hand, there are all sorts of reasons why in the Bible Jesus was believed to be of some sort of divine origin, but not even all Christians agree on His divinity, so there is nothing more than belief to be had.And finally, there are all sorts of reasons why Catholics believe in Jesus' divinity that are not accepted by other christians. Miracles and such. Even if a miracle were universally accepted, it could not prove that Jesus is divine, and not simply acting through the power of the divine. Not true. I will accept things which don't agree with the Bible, like the non-flood, but how can we know if something contradicts the Bible unless it mostly agrees with the Bible? To what degree do we need the evidence to match the Bible? It would be so much easier if there was one good, solid, contemporary story of Jesus out there with a different ending, but if there was, it might long ago have been destroyed.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Well, obviously, if someone believes in Apollo or Athena, they will attribute the miraculous to them, and not the Judeo-Christian God, or vice versa. I don't know enough about the miracles and visions of other religions, but sure they could all possibly come from one God (unless they contradict, maybe) or a collection of gods, or long dead gods, or a god with a host of angels and devils posing as God.Most judeo-christian apparitions involve the vision identifying him/herself, so, while you can't prove the veracity of the stories simply by naming names, there is little doubt about who the visionaries THINK they saw.

There are so many different variations within the theology of the virgin birth alone that there is no way to possibly predict or visualize what could or could not be true of divine DNA. There is also no reason to supppose that Jesus had any divine DNA, and no reason to suppose any parthenogenesis. As far as we know, any one 100% human can not be conceived through the mother alone.

Whoa, there are literally thousands of people said to have performed miracles, and some, witnessed in our own time. Not one person has made claim to a divine origin or DNA.There is also not much evidence that the miracles of Jesus had or have convinced anyone of divinity. Within christianity, it took literally centuries to conclude His divinity, and that is still only amoung certain sects. Interesting indeed, but even though I believe in the divinity of Jesus, I would not even consider that He had divine DNA.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

So, if I found a body in a 3000 year old tomb, in Egypt, inscribed with the name of Matthias, bones those of a man about 75 years old, that would be good reason to doubt the historical Jesus?

What are YOU talking about? How can anyone disprove the life of Jesus by finding a body that is so vastly different from the Bible's story, as evolution is from Genesis? I am telling you, there is NO WAY to prove a body belonged to a man called Jesus and the exact same Jesus as in the Bible, unless most of the details agree with the Bible.

Get over that, nem. There is no deification of Mary, only sanctification.And there was also no Bible to stray from at the time that these ideas became wide-spread. I don't know why or how the books of James that I mentioned were excluded from the Bible, but obviously at one time they were taken as trustworthy.See, you have to be all sola scriptura about it, but we Catholics do not. We were responsible for compiling the scriptures, and we could have thrown any old book in there to fool you. Just kidding...the point is, we are allowed some extra-biblical conjecture as long as it is not contradictory to what is Biblical. You are not allowed this adding to.The story goes, that Joseph was a widower with other children. That in a way helps to explain why the brothers of Jesus are not 'closer' to Him, but doesn't explain where they were during the flight into Egypt or the birth of Jesus. Unless they were much older. And, of course, it is not unusual at the time to have a girl offered in perpetual virginity.If these people would ever get around to analyzing the rest of the bodies found, we might be able to solve this problem with DNA as well. Assuming, of course, that the main body IS Jesus.

Your wiki link doesn't work. So, ok, one person? Can you prove he wasn't?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

So they say, and I have no problem with this since I am Catholic.If you are really objective about it, there is no way to tell if Jesus performed miracles of His own volition, or through the power of God.I should really put some Bible quotes in here, but all I am saying is that many people were not convinved that Jesus did miracles Himself, and not thru favor with God, and even if He did, that doesn't mean that He had a strange non-human body. It would be interesting to see, and I wouldn't neglect to do any tests if I had the option, but I am not nearly capable of any conjecture about whether or not sin = disease or pseudo-genes. All I know is that there is a lot of variation amoung even christians about what exactly, if anything, we got from Adam.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.