|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus Tomb Found | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
anastasia writes: Sorry, there. I was feeling a little nit-picky last night, maybe. Hello? I thanked you for pointing out my mistake. You don't need to say sorry for stuff I thank you for.
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. But, you see, there must have been a biggest hoax ever. And you could always point to the biggest hoax ever, and say "if that was a hoax, it was the biggest hoax ever". And that wouldn't be an argument against it being a hoax.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: As you know it is far from certain that the Babylonian Talmud is about the Jesus of the Bible. Nor does it depict him as an especially controversial figure - nobody would defend him. Your references to Josephus are irrelevant sicne Jospehus is the one source that does apparently mention Jesus in context although the only passage that could support your claim is contentious and is probably at least partially - and quite possibly wholly - a Christian interpolation.
quote: That is one thing I didn't say. I even told you as much in the message you are replying to. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent me ?
quote:You mean 80 years after Jesus' death, written by a man born 20 years after Jesus' death. Hardly a true contemporary. quote: In other words rather than addressimg my point - that Tacitus said nothing that would support your claim that Jesus was a truly controversial figure in his lifetime - you try to pretend that I am claiming that Jesus didn't exist ! That doesn't show bias on my part. The fact that rather than deal with my point as it stood you choose to repeatedly misrepresent me despite my corrections shows your bias.
quote:Josephus and Tacitus have a better provenance than the anonymous Gospel called Matthew. (Which is almost certainly not the document attributed to the disciple Matthew by Papias). And I certainly would question Jospehus in the ways that actually make sense. There are obviously self-serving passages in The Jewsih War, for instance. quote:Based on the very real differences in the acccounts that I pointed out. And of course on discovering that experts date it to the 2nd Century. Just admit that you have a strong aversion to the truth whenever it gets in the way of your apologetics and then we can move on. And I would add that opposing you is hardly opposing Chrisitianty. quote:i.e. it says that he had already been tried and sentenced to death. And since it does not say that the stoning was not carried out, why assume that it was not ? It is, after all, part of the sentence - according to the account it certainly should have happened. quote: Try reading it in context. That occurs BEFORE Jesus' arrest and trial.
quote: Mara Bar-Serapion does not seem to have been a historian - he is an bosure figure but I can find no verification of such a claim. It is not even known when he wrote the letter - nto a history - in question. Indeed we do not know he is talking about Jesus - only a Christian would call Jesus a King and that for religious reasons. So his letter - if it refers to Jesus at all - is likely simply repeating Christian claims (the earliest date puts it at AD 73 and it may be as late as 200 AD).
quote: But I DO beleive that there was a historical figure behind the Jesus story ! The question is why, when I point out defects in your evidence you keep turning around and falsely asserting that I do not. Why do you keep doing that ?
quote:No, Jesus was not clearly prophesised before his time. And you were specifically talking about Chjristinaity when it was even younger than the Jehovah's Witnesses are now, so my comparison stands. quote: i.e. older than Christianity was when the resurrection supposeldy occurred. SO it has already survived long enough to serve as a valid example.
quote: Of course I do. I applied it to the Babylonian Talmud - but you didn't like that either. What you mean is that you haven't observed me seriously discuss other sources so you have no valid basis for your assertion.
quote: If there was an Empty Tomb, proving the truth of the resurrection it WOULD have been important. The fact that Paul does not mention it is therefore not insignificant.
quote: If it's fine then why do you complain about it ?
quote:So the only problem is that you feel like making up baseless accusations. I'd say that was your problem, not mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
DrA writes: You don't need to say sorry for stuff I thank you for. But I do, because I know I was feeling rude when I wrote it. I could have easily found the source myself.
And that wouldn't be an argument against it being a hoax. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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. Well the bible has actually changed a lot in that time. Christianity has also. In fact as a religion one of it's main attributes has been the ability to adapt and survive. Is the Torah a hoax? The Koran? Hindu teachings? Are these all hoaxes because if they are they are pretty large ones too.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Straggler writes: In fact as a religion one of it's main attributes has been the ability to adapt and survive. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
This makes more sense, and looking at it without injecting bias, it is possible that it be Jesus' ossuary. well, it does seem to be jesus's ossuary. and jesus ben joseph, at that. the question is really whether or not this jesus is the jesus of the new testament. i don't think the case is very good.
Yes, very likely. And what would be even more likely is that the whole area would have known about it in those days because he was such a prolific and infamous figure in those days. call me heretical, but i'm unconvinced that jesus made a significant stir in his own lifetime. sure, he pissed of the religious authorities, which seems to have gotten him killed... but i don't think his name was going around the average household. he'd show up in town squares, and talk to peasants here and there, maybe even gather a crowd from time to time. but his strict following seems to have been only about a dozen men, and a few women. really, it's the name and the legend of jesus christ that changed the world. the evangelism of luke and paul. the underground church in rome -- and emperor constantine. but while he was alive, he was a lowly carpenter's son. i doubt many would have cared where he was buried, except his family. and his family was from nazareth.
I know very little about him, so for me to make any presuppositions at this point would be unfair and slanderous. I can, however, critique this latest work. What I've seen so far is very unconvincing. On the other hand, I don't doubt that he has a penchant for these kinds of exaggerations please take the time to read some of chris heard's critique of his last program, exodus decoded, over at higgaion. and if you can find the documentary, watch that too, but very skeptically. like i said, i normally don't like ad hominems, but with as much dishonesty as i've seen from him before, and the facts that i've never seen anything BUT dishonesty from him, and that there is every indication so far that this is nothing but the same (ie: james ossuary)... well, i'm not going to expect to be wowed with sudden academic sholarship and well-reasoned factual arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
That can be true, but it doesn't need to be. Indeed. One might almost say that one generally finds the answer to the question is 'culture'.
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. It is a shout out-out for critical thinking over any belief including that of an historical 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. Yes, it is easy to understand. You don't accept evidence that contradicts what you believe because it contradicts what you believe. I think pointing out that this is not rational, is fairly easy to understand. Believers often deny that something is evidence if that evidence contradicts their belief. A critical thinker would say something more like "There are many biographies of a character called 'Jesus', most of them contradictory in their historical claims. Each account is at best secondary evidence, though the biographies that were written earlier are more likely to contain accurate recordings than the later versions. This tomb is not connected in anyway with any of these biographies other than some of the names and relationships coincide. They are common names so it can basically be rejected."
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. Most historians require corroborating evidence of the gospels before they can be established. They must be established before they can be 'overridden'. Certain elements of the gospels have been shown to be historically accurate. Most of the elements have not. Too many of the elements are confusing and contradictory requiring historical gymnastics to explain. So:
you have to admit that there is not enough to go on right now to rule out one version over the other. I don't think there is enough to rule one version in. The essential thing for you to remember anastasia, is that I was simply trying to help you see eye-to-eye with Creavolution. The two of you are often making valid points to each other, but you are talking about different things - I was hoping to facilitate a resolution to that. For example, you said:
Which sounds like a basic shout-out for critical thinking over any belief. Creavolution was doing that very thing. He was trying to say that you shouldn't be special pleading for your own belief, the general rule you originally proposed required special pleading. However, you modified the general rule later (that is you went from the general second person plural, to the specific first person singular).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. Well of course the more successful a hoax is, the less likely you are to know that its a hoax. Perhaps some historical hoax was so successful that it fooled everybody. Julius Caesar never existed, but there was a big cover-up. These epistemological questions aside, consider Islam. If Muhammad wasn't really hearing God talking to him, but was just making stuff up as he went along (as you and I presumably both believe) then he successfully pulled off a hoax which has fooled people for 1400 years and currently has 1.4 billion dupes. You've got to admit, that's quite a big hoax. Christianity has 2.1 billion believers: that's only half as many again. By the way, did you say: "withstood 2000 years of relentless scrutiny"? I think you'll find that quite a lot of those 2000 years were spent saying "Certum est, quia impossible est" and burning anyone who disagreed. Also, as I have pointed out, it is not clear that Christianity can be said to have "withstood" scrutiny, since clearly most people don't believe it. The hoax which has withstood scrutiny is the one no-one ever doubts. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Is adaptibiliy a characteristic of hoaxes? If a hoax were to endure 2000 years it would arguably be a necessary characteristic of said hoax. No?
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. You seem to be claiming that by being based on even less evidence than some other religions ("those based on a real historic person's teachings") Christianity is somehow more believable? Isn't this a slightly absurd position?
People can just be wrong
Quite. And in the absence of any evidence to show that they are not just wrong are the supernatural elements of Christianity not all but certainly nonsense? Who was it that said "The bigger the lie the more people will believe it"? Nixon?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The scientists and doctors would have o do what, exactly? Witness the event, and verify that the person was truly dead? Even then they might be inclined to try and rationalize it the best they can. They may say, "Well, he obviously wasn't really dead in the first place. His heartbeat was probably experiencing severe bradycardia and it masqueraded as a death." The point is, even if it was in front of their face and it confounded medical science, there is a good chance they would think of scenarios for why it couldn't possibly be what it appeared to be.
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. That's it, basically.
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. Yes, this is what I have alluding to at times in this thread. Every time some new gnostic text is recovered from Egypt, or anything along those lines that might discredit the biblical account, there is a lot of media attention. Would they give any attention to it if it corroborated the biblical account? I don't know.
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. "The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus." -Michael Grant "He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Modulous writes: You don't accept evidence that contradicts what you believe because it contradicts what you believe. 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.
A critical thinker would say something more like "There are many biographies of a character called 'Jesus', most of them contradictory in their historical claims. Each account is at best secondary evidence, though the biographies that were written earlier are more likely to contain accurate recordings than the later versions. This tomb is not connected in anyway with any of these biographies other than some of the names and relationships coincide. They are common names so it can basically be rejected." 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.
Most historians require corroborating evidence of the gospels before they can be established. They must be established before they can be 'overridden'. 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?
I don't think there is enough to rule one version in 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.
The essential thing for you to remember anastasia, is that I was simply trying to help you see eye-to-eye with Creavolution. The two of you are often making valid points to each other, but you are talking about different things - I was hoping to facilitate a resolution to that. Well, thank you for that.
Creavolution was doing that very thing. He was trying to say that you shouldn't be special pleading for your own belief, the general rule you originally proposed required special pleading. However, you modified the general rule later (that is you went from the general second person plural, to the specific first person singular). 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Straggler writes: If a hoax were to endure 2000 years it would arguably be a necessary characteristic of said hoax. No? 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.
You seem to be claiming that by being based on even less evidence than some other religions ("those based on a real historic person's teachings") Christianity is somehow more believable? 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.
Quite. And in the absence of any evidence to show that they are not just wrong are the supernatural elements of Christianity not all but certainly nonsense? Not certainly nonsene, no, any more than the supernatural elements of any other belief are certain nonsense. That part is up to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
DrA writes: These epistemological questions aside, consider Islam. If Muhammad wasn't really hearing God talking to him, but was just making stuff up as he went along (as you and I presumably both believe) then he successfully pulled off a hoax which has fooled people for 1400 years and currently has 1.4 billion dupes 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.
By the way, did you say: "withstood 2000 years of relentless scrutiny"? I think you'll find that quite a lot of those 2000 years were spent saying "Certum est, quia impossible est" and burning anyone who disagreed. Also, as I have pointed out, it is not clear that Christianity can be said to have "withstood" scrutiny, since clearly most people don't believe it. The hoax which has withstood scrutiny is the one no-one ever doubts. Yes, christianity has withstood 2000 years of relentless scrutiny, in the simple sense that it is still around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
There is no deification of Mary, only sanctification. The Pope John Paul credited Mary with saving his life from an assassins bullet. If the Pope himself, who is called "the Vicar of Christ," and who is reputed to be "infallible," credits Mary with divine providence, there must be some truth that many Catholics intentionally or unwittingly deify Mary.
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. Their were many conferences and councils in the early church period because a lot of gnostic texts began to materialize. As a result, it was confusing the laymen because there were conflicting accounts about Jesus. After prayer and analysis, it was determined by a panel consisting of 60 theologians to determine what would be canonized and what was not of God, but of man.
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. Jesus was about 3 years old when the flight back from Egypt took place once Herod died. After this time, they were free to live their lives as usual and could have had their other children. The fact remains that the Bible and extra-biblical sources say that Jesus had siblings. Obviously, that would make them half-brothers and half-sisters, but siblings nonetheless. So either the Bible and Josephus were incorrect, or its a true account. But if you bring this into question, then you would have to bring all of the Bible into question as well. "He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
That is a true statement. A person would be killd by suffication (crushing of the throat or something like that), and then the body would be 'hung' for display. According to the rules, the methods of execution had to be fast, and with the amount of pain minimised. Care was supposedly taken to keep the body as intact as possible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024