|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus Tomb Found | |||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Creavolution writes: good question, I would say nothing short of witnessing the event myself, and corroboration by a number of IMPARTIAL scientists/doctors 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've just been asking questions to try to clarify some statements that you and nem have made. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Modulous writes: And his divinity, his parentage, how he left this world, and some of the things he said. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
ana writes:
I agree that we need good evidence to establish whether these tombs are indeed those of jesus and his family. 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.BUT I also require good evidence to convince me that the gospels are truth. You, as you have stated, do not. This is the double standard I am trying to understand. On the one hand you need evidence to prove something, on the other you do not. ana writes:
Yet you do not require corroborating evidence for you belief in jesus as a deity?
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? ana writes:
So you will only accept evidence of Jesus existance if it agrees with the biblical account? And dismiss all else out of hand? thank you for admitting your own wilful ignorance.
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. ana writes:
And that is precisely the problem. the Bible Might be wrong, and there is little else to corroborrate the stories therein. we do not have the evidence. evidence which you seem to require to even consider the jesus tomb find. but by your own admission will shun if it disagrees with the biblical account anyway.
The Bible might not be true, sure, but it is hard to know who could be the real Jesus outside of that account. ana writes:
I agree, but there is precious little of that, and as we have seen in this thread much of it is unclear or contradictory
I think the logical thing to do is look at extra-Biblcal evidence, aa writes:
I certainly think they are trying to cash in on current thinking. And I have seen nothing (no evidence) that convinces me that their claims are genuine (hence my interest in the "DNA"). But I have also seen nothing (no evidence) that convinces me that the Bible is genuine.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
AnswersinGenitals writes: 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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Creavolution writes: Yet you do not require corroborating evidence for you belief in jesus as a deity? 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.
So you will only accept evidence of Jesus existance if it agrees with the biblical account? And dismiss all else out of hand? thank you for admitting your own wilful ignorance. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
anastasia writes:
I'm curious about something. Other religions, past and present, have records of supposed miracles also. If a miracle happens, why does the deity behind the miracle have to be the judeo christian god? Why can't it be apollo or athena? In other words, if a person experiences a revelation and sees a woman deity figure, why does it have to be the virgin mary? Why can't it be aphrodite?
And finally, there are all sorts of reasons why Catholics believe in Jesus' divinity that are not accepted by other christians. Miracles and such.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Tazmanian Devil writes: If a miracle happens, why does the deity behind the miracle have to be the judeo christian god? Why can't it be apollo or athena? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
ana writes:
I'm not sure what you mean here. Two differing stories can contradict on many points. but how can we know if something contradicts the Bible unless it mostly agrees with the Bible? For instance, the theory of evolution has nothing in common with the genesis myth. yet they contradict each other completely
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 150 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
Almost every teaching about Jesus says He was 100% man. Almost every teaching about Jesus says he performed miracles and it was the performance of these miracles that convinced the skeptical of his divine powers. Someone who is "100% man" cannot perform miracles. If the body, bones, blood residue, or any other potential source of DNA were actually discovered and the DNA analysis showed unique charactoristics, particularly the acquired defects I mentioned, this would be very compelling evidence that the soure was of divine origin. That's all I'm trying to say. Robin Cook's mystery novel "Seizure" considers the interesting implications of this possibility.
maybe you are being humorous? My being humongous has nothing to do with the issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1503 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Catholic teachings say that Jesus was both fully man and fully God. If one were to attempt to identify what his genome was then he would most likely be a clone. Since his conception was one of parthenogenisis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 150 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
Catholic teachings say that Jesus was both fully man and fully God. If one were to attempt to identify what his genome was then he would most likely be a clone. Since his conception was one of parthenogenisis.
According to catholic (and, of course, other christian)teachings, jesus was most certainly not a parthenote. He had a distinct, identified mother and a distinct, identified father.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
1.61803 writes: Since his conception was one of parthenogenisis. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
AIG writes: Almost every teaching about Jesus says he performed miracles and it was the performance of these miracles that convinced the skeptical of his divine powers. Someone who is "100% man" cannot perform miracles. 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.
Robin Cook's mystery novel "Seizure" considers the interesting implications of this possibility. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Crea writes: For instance, the theory of evolution has nothing in common with the genesis myth. yet they contradict each other completely 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024