Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 91 of 242 (387612)
03-01-2007 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by anastasia
03-01-2007 12:04 PM


Where do all these other texts mention Jesus, so that I may compare biographies?
The Qur'an has a lot to say about Jesus. Such as
quote:
[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 12:04 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 3:51 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 92 of 242 (387613)
03-01-2007 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by anastasia
03-01-2007 12:04 PM


ana writes:
Of course I have not proved that any other texts are not true
So, by your reasoning
ana writes:
I don't need evidence to believe, I need evidence to stop believing.
you must believe in them untill they have been disproven.
ana writes:
I can't even cover all of those in a life-time, let alone make a judgement on the tens of thousands of other religious texts.
Well it seems a little dishonest to require a "disproof" of christianity but not for any other theory. Either your claim that:
ana writes:
I don't need evidence to believe, I need evidence to stop believing.
holds or it doesn't.
I simply want to know why this holds for the bible but not for any other text. If you cannot answer that you should question why it is you have this double standard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 12:04 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 3:37 PM Heathen has replied

  
honda33
Member (Idle past 5161 days)
Posts: 51
From: Antigua
Joined: 04-11-2006


Message 93 of 242 (387616)
03-01-2007 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Hyroglyphx
02-27-2007 6:57 PM


NJ Writes:
All parties involved knew that Jesus preached that He would raise from the dead and discussed how to secure the tomb with guards.
All parties? How about the disciples and the women? I find it strange that the people who actually SAW the incredible miracles that Jesus performed were MIA for the grand finale. None of Jesus' close followers expected Him to rise from the dead .... even though there were dead saints perusing the streets of Jerusalem

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-27-2007 6:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 94 of 242 (387620)
03-01-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Heathen
03-01-2007 2:16 PM


Creavolution writes:
you must believe in them untill they have been disproven.
Nah, I never said any such thing.
There is no belief I MUST have.
This is not hard, honestly. It was not even meant to be profound. I said simply; It would take good evidence for me to discontinue taking the story of Jesus' death, as given in the Bible, as based on truth.
Well it seems a little dishonest to require a "disproof" of christianity but not for any other theory.
Why? I am not scrutinizing any other theory at this time in my life. I have no idea what other theories I will someday be enamoured of, but if there are any, I will require disproof for them also. Or maybe I won't. Maybe it will be easy come, easy go by then. And there is no double standard. I am sure that if I have any other beliefs in my life-time, I will not need evidence for them. Reasons, maybe, not evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Heathen, posted 03-01-2007 2:16 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Heathen, posted 03-01-2007 6:01 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 95 of 242 (387622)
03-01-2007 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Modulous
03-01-2007 2:02 PM


Modulous writes:
The Qur'an has a lot to say about Jesus.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 03-01-2007 2:02 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Modulous, posted 03-02-2007 2:19 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 96 of 242 (387629)
03-01-2007 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by arachnophilia
03-01-2007 12:48 PM


Re: Decrees
arach writes:
the span from gethsemane to resurrection is no more than 4 days.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by arachnophilia, posted 03-01-2007 12:48 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by arachnophilia, posted 03-02-2007 12:00 AM anastasia 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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 98 of 242 (387646)
03-01-2007 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
03-01-2007 5:13 PM


Re: Jesus: Is he, or isn't he?
quote:
Those are in the context of His time.
Which extra Biblical sources, other than Josephus deal with Jesus the man in the context of HIS time ? Tacitus certainly doesn't. Which extra-Biblical sources indicate that Jesus was the controversial figure you claim ?
quote:
As for Tacitus, I'm sorry, but that is considered contemporary in the grand scheme of time.
i.e. Tacitus says nothing relevant to the point so you are going to waffle abotu the "grand scheme of time" to try and evade the actual point at issue.
quote:
That's what is annotated in the gospels
In Matthews Gospel. And we have no idea where it came from. It could easily have been made up. And that doesn't change the fact that your argument is circular. You tried to use one claim to support another - and when you couldn't do that you just turned it on it's head. It's completely invalid reasoning.
quote:
Substantiate your claim, please.
I provided substantiation in the link in my post.
quote:
How can you believe in Occam's Razor and say that Jesus was not an actual figure in human history?
I didn't say that. What I said - as your quote confirms - is that it is unlikely that your quote from the Babylonian Talmud is an official contemporary account of the execution of Jesus. Those are very different claims.
quote:
There is no inaccuracy that could pin down either way.
The 40 day period between trial and execution. Execution by stoning. Execution by the Jews. These are clear conflicts with the Gospe accounts.
l
quote:
The disciples may not have known about it.
They wouldn't have known about a public call for witnesseses after Jesus' arrest and trial ? For 40 days ? 40 days which aren't even mentioned inthe Bible which puts the arrest and trial the day before the execution ?
quote:
But every other historian does mention it.
So every "other historian" says that Jesus wasn't executed by the Romans ? Which other historians ? And why do you believe them rather than the Gospels ?
quote:
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?
Please explain why my doubts over the idea that your quote from the Babylonian Talmud is an accurate and contemporary account of the execution of Jesus require me to doubt either of these things ? Your question makes no sense and seems to be a crude attempt at poisoning the well.
quote:
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.
You mean like the Jehovahs Witnesses failed and disappeared after all their prophecies of the end of the world failed to occur. Obviously they couldn't keep going after that. Like Scientology failed and died when L Ron Hubbards claims of miraculous healing were exposed as lies. Your claim is amply shown to be false by the fact that other religions have survived equally bad failures.
And in fact we don't know what happened back then. The events woud have been rewritten and reinterpreted in the decades betweeen the time they happened and the Gosepls were actually written. We don't see any mention of an empty tomb in Paul's writings. If it is so essential why did he not mention it ?
quote:
Then you must discount all of history that predates this time with the same imperiousness.
Obviously not. It is hardly unknown for there to be sources from different viewpoints. And much of history deals with events where archaeological evidence is also available. No responsible historian would uncritically rely on partisan accounts from one side in the absence of other evidence. There is no problem with my viewpoint - it is the only rational one. And the only reason that you disparage it is because you want me to uncritically accept the partisan sources that YOU prefer.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-01-2007 5:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-03-2007 1:42 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 99 of 242 (387648)
03-01-2007 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by anastasia
03-01-2007 3:37 PM


ana writes:
Nah, I never said any such thing.
Uhm... that's exactly what you said...
ana in msg68 writes:
I don't need evidence to believe, I need evidence to stop believing
ana in msg79 writes:
You don't need evidence to believe, you need it to not believe.
and you certainly consider it true for the bible:
ana in msg76 writes:
The Bible can be taken as accurate until proved otherwise.
so why not other texts?
ana writes:
Say I read a biography. I can believe it. Until, I read another which says something contradictory.
Seems like you simply choose what to believe and what not to, 'evidence' (for or against) doesn't even enter the picture. Why the pretense?
as shown in msg68
ana writes:
So, while there is no physical evidence for the Biblical Jesus, the Bible can be believed.
ana writes:
Why? I am not scrutinizing any other theory at this time in my life.
It doesn't appear that you have scrutinised Christianity very much either. but you accept it as truth.
This thread actually started with the intention of finding out what DNA evidence the supporters of the Jesus tomb actually had.
It has subsequently got lost in the debate about when evidence is necessary.
It is apparent that no evidence is required for unflinching, unquestioning belief in the ressurection of jesus. I find this quite startling, and worrying that people are so desperatly unable to deal with the realities of their own lives that they have to assume belief in a poorly corroborated, poorly understood 2000 year old story, in order to provide them with some comfort, and some hope of an afterlife.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 3:37 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 7:47 PM Heathen has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 100 of 242 (387666)
03-01-2007 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Heathen
03-01-2007 6:01 PM


Creavolution writes:
It has subsequently got lost in the debate about when evidence is necessary.
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.
It is apparent that no evidence is required for unflinching, unquestioning belief in the ressurection of jesus.
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.
I find this quite startling, and worrying that people are so desperatly unable to deal with the realities of their own lives that they have to assume belief in a poorly corroborated, poorly understood 2000 year old story, in order to provide them with some comfort, and some hope of an afterlife
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Heathen, posted 03-01-2007 6:01 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Heathen, posted 03-01-2007 9:01 PM anastasia has replied

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


Message 101 of 242 (387674)
03-01-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by anastasia
03-01-2007 7:47 PM


ana writes:
It is not such a strange thing that you should get all topsy-turvy
no-one's getting topsy turvy, I've just been asking questions to try to clarify some statements that you and nem have made.
ana writes:
the story of Jesus is not poorly understood,
in this thread alone we have contradictory versions of his execution. These raise doubts as to whether these reports are about the same guy.
THe church continues to repress the many gospaels that have arisen in favour of those currently accepted. If it's all so cut and dried, why would they need to hide further information?
ana writes:
I can't possibly be this fascinating
correct.
But as long as you keep responding to my posts, in such away as to highlight contradictions, you can keep expecting me to ask more questions. It's the engineer in me. If it bothers you, stop responding. simple.
ana writes:
What kind of evidence would YOU need to believe someone rose from the dead?
good question, I would say nothing short of witnessing the event myself, and corroboration by a number of IMPARTIAL scientists/doctors

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 7:47 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by anastasia, posted 03-02-2007 10:50 AM Heathen has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 102 of 242 (387689)
03-02-2007 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by anastasia
03-01-2007 4:18 PM


Re: Decrees
ah, ok. fair enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 4:18 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 103 of 242 (387703)
03-02-2007 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by anastasia
03-01-2007 3:51 PM


Far as I knew, they only clash over the resurrection.
And his divinity, his parentage, how he left this world, and some of the things he said.
Incidentally, a lot of the confusion with Creavolution has come from how you made a statement in second person plural (you don't need evidence to believe). And then later switching to first person (I personally don't need evidence.
You made an observation which was that
So, while there is no physical evidence for the Biblical Jesus, the Bible can be believed.
Which could easily be applied to the Qur'an. Moreso in some sense since there is more physcial evidence for the Qur'anic Mohammed. I'd have thought you would agree with that, but it seems not, and Creavolution and I are both curious why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 3:51 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by anastasia, posted 03-02-2007 11:59 AM Modulous has replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 104 of 242 (387709)
03-02-2007 4:55 AM


Whats in the coffins?
Getting back to the OP, it is not clear to me that any bodily remains were found in the coffins. Does anyone have any specific information on this? If remains were found and they could provide recoverable DNA, that DNA could be checked to see if it supports the relationships indicated by the inscriptions. Also, the DNA of the remains found in the coffin attributed to jesus (or jeshua) could be checked for possible divine origin: Human DNA has many pseudogenes inserted by past infectious agents; these should be absent from divine DNA. If the jesus coffin is occupied and the occupant is determined by his DNA to be of divine origin, we will finally be able to determine whether god is male or female.

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2007 5:31 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied
 Message 110 by anastasia, posted 03-02-2007 12:10 PM AnswersInGenitals has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 105 of 242 (387711)
03-02-2007 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by AnswersInGenitals
03-02-2007 4:55 AM


Re: Whats in the coffins?
Supposedly they have been able to determine (through mitochondrial analysis) that the "Jesus" and a "Mary" (the one that is supposedly Mary Magdalene) don't share a maternal lineage. And that's it. Not much to go on.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-02-2007 4:55 AM AnswersInGenitals 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