Jesus Tomb Found

Sorry, there. I was feeling a little nit-picky last night, maybe. Anyway, I get your point, and people of all times are gullible. There are countless outlandish tales of quackery and faked deaths, get rich schemes, and deceived widows, in the annuls of the Old West...but I think it is fair to say that the Bible would be the biggest 'hoax' ever.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

That can be true, but it doesn't need to be.Absolutely, if I were born and raised in a country where Islam is predominate, I could be more inclined to follow Mohammed.But you are saying things like this; Which sounds like a basic shout-out for critical thinking over any belief. That may have its merits, but this was only intended to be a discussion involving critical thought about one belief, and namely, that of an historcial Jesus.So, if you will discuss that alone, it is easy to understand why I, as a believer in the gospels, do not accept a much more recent biography of Jesus as evidence, and how, regardless of culture, there is no reason to think the Qu'ran knows something more about Jesus' life than the gospels do, or that this tomb story gives any good reasons to date to doubt the gospels.I really do not know what is so hard about that. Any historian, any Bible scholar, will need the same kind of evidence to over-ride the gospels, even if they are impartial about the religious aspect. No one needs to put their money anywhere, but you have to admit that there is not enough to go on right now to rule out one version over the other.

But I do, because I know I was feeling rude when I wrote it. I could have easily found the source myself. So, no hoax is too big to be a hoax? Maybe. But I don't know of any other supposed gigantic hoax that has withstood 2000 years of relentless scrutiny.

Is adaptibiliy a characteristic of hoaxes?Let me narrow the field a minute; we can't really get into which religions are false or true, and even if some are false, this doesn't mean they are hoaxes. People can just be wrong. Christianity is a bit different when it comes to hoaxes, however. It is based upon the ressurection of one man that no one can be sure ever existed. So the question of 'hoax' was more in this context than in a general question about all religions being hoaxes. Many religions are based on a completely transcendant God concept, an overall way of living, or a real historic person's teachings.

That's simply not true. There have been many, many occasions even in this forum where the evidence as it were is different from how I have believed in the past, when my beliefs were not analyzed. One example; the two different days on which Jesus was crucified in the NT. Before I came here I had never even noticed the disparity, and only with some research and the help of Brian and arach, did I see that there were indeed two stories within the gospels.And, recently, I have seen that some of my beliefs are not Biblcal, whereas I had assumed they were. One of the main feasts of the Eastern church is that of the Presentation of Mary in the Temple. This story is not even in the Bible. I do not think I have the slightest problem with changing my views in the face of information.So, is the Jesus' tomb find evidence enough to change my views? Not with what I know about it this minute, no. Maybe we can talk again after tonight's broadcast. What is critical about that? Everyone who has studied the first thing about Jesus already knows this stuff. Christianity is entirely based on centuries of critical thinking about exactly this stuff. That's silly. How could something established as fact be over-ridden?If we get all this evidence which corroberates the gospels, so we can 'establish' them, and they are indeed established, it will be harder than ever to over-ride them. We are still looking for corroboration here that we can use to over-ride.See, what if we found a body which had been crucified, buried in the right locale, inscribed Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, etc? We would have corroborated the NT. How would we then over-ride it? Either way; in, out, it doesn't matter. There is no historical evidence of the resurrection other than the followers of this at the time. Well, thank you for that. I would think that speaking in first person singular would be more special pleading, not less. Don't worry too much. I can stop believing whenever I want, and I 'know how'. I am not stuck, or brain-washed, or culture satiated, or unaware. It is quite possible for me to detach myself from my beliefs enough to think objectively and critically about them. At this point in my life, I am still fascinated by theology and cristology, and there is so much to learn critically about just those, and the Bible, and the church fathers, etc, to keep me occupied for a long time.

Sure, but we can't be sure unless we have evidence of such 2000 year hoax. Usually there are perpetrators, and we have here no motive and no perp. It is not my experience that hoaxes perpetuate themselves. As nemesis' quote says above, the amount of conjecture and hoop-jumping it would take to ascribe a different cause to the origins of christianity, far surpasses the simple idea that there was a real Jesus. No, not at all. I am saying that when it comes to hoaxes, there are no claims that Mohammed was 'faked' because we have much evidence of his existance.Let me try it this way...religions can evolve, they can be wrong, or right, but are generally not thought of as being purposefully perpetrated schemes by a person or a group of people. Some sects may be money-making control cults started by a trickster of sorts, but the 'hoaxster' is usually well established in his/her existance. So, I am claiming that christianity has some unique characteristics when it comes to foundations, and any way in which these characteristics affect personal belief (more or less believable) is a question of viewpoint. Nemesis and I and many others believe that christianity is less hoky because the motives for such a long term hoax are not at all apparant, and neither is a perpetrator. Not certainly nonsene, no, any more than the supernatural elements of any other belief are certain nonsense. That part is up to you.

No, I have no stance on whether Muhammed made things up as he went along. I don't agree with what he said, but I can't assume that he was faking, or criticize his intentions, sources, etc. Yes, christianity has withstood 2000 years of relentless scrutiny, in the simple sense that it is still around.

Well, there isn't. And the Pope does not unwiitingly run around saying things that go against 2000 years of teaching. Not that a Pope couldn't, but by the time they reach the Papacy, there is not much excuse for 'I didn't know that's what the church said'. I am not sure why some folks always think that I must be opposing the Bible. Claiming that Joseph was a widower with children from a previous marriage deson't contradict anything. It is extra-biblical, but hey, if you are not being sola scriptura anyway by using Josephus, you would be the one who has to decide which parts of non-scripture you will accept. Obviously you can accept the writings of the Sanhedrin even though they add to the Bible? Nemesis, I know that. I meant that I do not know exactly the reasons why the Protoevangelium of James was not admitted to the canon despite being traditionally and currently used as a source in the feasts of the RCC.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

No, I meant it. I don't know that anyone except for Moslems would accept Muhammed's biography of Jesus as any more 'true' than the story in the gospels. But it really depends on whether you are talking strict history, or supernatural/theological. Yes, I know, sorry to be confusing. But if we are only talking here about the Jesus tomb, there is really no evidence for a Biblcal Jesus outside of the Bible. It makes things so much more complicated when you can't test something against a fact. This is why we use things like Jewish and Roman law and customs, which are pretty well estabished as fact, to decide which other 'evidences' may be considered. If we would prove the NT, or disprove it, there must be a gradual establishment of facts before we can just make claims for any body found.

I am not sure that supernatural things are all so comforting or that wanting really plays a big part in what you believe. I don't know if I 'wanted' to be a Hare Krishna, if I could jsut snap myself into believing it. Can the physical evidence lead to the supernatural?

I know of no other religion that professes an entity that loves us. Even the christian Entity would still send us to hell. Well, apparently it is very easy to abandon beliefs, judging by those we see here...but I don't know to what extent those beliefs were really believed. My belief goes way beyond any security or comfort. Physical evidence of super natural existance, eh?

doubleEdited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I don't deny that there are comforts, but for me they come more from traditional assosciations, familiarity, ...not so much from the doctrines. I do think that we can project a comfort level onto whatever we are given, even in the absence of any formal religion. That is how our minds work, and I don't know what is putting the cart before the horse. I believe , if we had any real grasp of the supernatural, it might be a very frightening thing. Sure there are attempts to look for God's fingerprints, but to date there are not any clear sets. I am pretty much with the Bible on this one; blessed is he who has not seen and yet believes; you must seek before you can find...I do not see the merit in waiting around for divine evidence and DNA before we can believe, since that takes the challenge out of the whole thing.

This is pretty nearly a re-phrase of your last post. There is no point discussing in this context which religion is true. Hoaxes were mantioned, and yes, all religions can be false, or all can be true, but it si not the same point exactly as the original 'hoax' point.A religion that does not pan out in the end may be false.Christianity is a religion based on the life of one man and ultimately on His resurrection, and niether the man nor the resurrection left any concrete evidence. The reason 'hoax' comes up specifically in christianity is because there are people who believe that there were perpetrators; the apostles faked the crucifixion, or the resurrection, or the evangelists faked Jesus, or both, or other aspects of the whole story.People are not asking if the religion is true; that is pointless.They are asking if it is founded on a hoax. That is different altogether, since hoaxes that are by men have a possibility of being 'found out' at some point.I see that you have added a picture from the Inquisition. It is neat to put some weight behind your words, but I understood what you meant the first time. I am not sure what the Inquisition had to do with christianity enduring scritiny, since Inquisition and all, it has remained alive.Maybe you mean 'endure' as in, 'put up with' scrutiny. At times the church has not done this, yes, but be that as it may, scrutiny went on, and it still does, from both inside and outside of the fold. The religion, to date, has not been proved to have been founded on a hoax.

I did catch it nemesis, and the special afterwards with Ted Koppel. That was the really good part. I was laughing very bad at some points when Simcha Jacobovici was dueling it out with the theological men, as well as Ted Koppel and the critics.Over-all, I learned only a few new facts...the ties between the tomb and the story of Mary Magdalene as recorded in the Acts of Philip were interesting, possibly compelling, except that the Acts were of a much later date.I also learned about what had been bugging me; why was there not more DNA testing between other family members and why was the maternal DNA the only part talked about. It seems the rest of the ossuaries had been vaccumed out, and there is no DNA to test.Very curious about why, well, how, the tomb has been resealed, and what it would take for IAA to open it back up and allow the research to continue. It seems a bit odd to have such a controversial site under lock and key...While they can't exactly place the James box at the site, it seems logical that it came from there...but I am interested mainly in a 'what if' reconstruction of Biblical events assuming the tomb is real.What are the chances or liklihood that all members of the family would have landed up in one place?How long would a son of Jesus remained incognito?What if the John of the NT were the son of Jesus, as the show sort of theorizes?Can we put what we have as far as text into place with these details, or would there be huge problems?