Jesus Tomb Found

I was talking about belief. I am not suggesting you don't revise your opinion of what a text says when you learn more about what a text says. You said 'I, as a believer in the gospels, do not accept a much more recent biography of Jesus as evidence', which is what I am responding to. You just stated that you don't accept certain pieces of evidence (later biographies) as evidence because you believe what some other evidence (certain, but not all earlier biographies) states. If you didn't mean what you said, that's another thing. I was describing a part of critical thinking: skeptisism regarding claims made by people. Quite easily. It happens all the time - that is what all conclusions in sciences (incl historical studies) are tentative. What were once called facts are overthrown by new evidence or new, better ways of understanding existing evidence. Yes, the more corroborating evidence, the less likely they are to be overthrown. All I said was that claims made in writing shouldn't be accepted as is, and other evidence should be looked at too. I wouldn't say that was necessarily corroborating evidence, that is just consistent with the hypothesis, but the names alone are too common. We couldn't override the entire NT with one piece of evidence either. There are certain things in the Bible which are established at this time. Things such as Roman occupation. We accept them because of the corroborating evidences. Yes, I'm fairly sure that is what I am saying. Yes, in a sense. However, it would at least be a true statement. Then you are truly unique. I am culture satiated, culture biased and culture brain-washed.But I know what you mean Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

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.

All of this dismisses the power of people desperately wanting to believe in supernatural and comforting things.
That could well be the reason for the incredible durability of all the different religions regardless of their basis in truth or otherwise.
Incredibly successful hoax or strong desire to believe the unbelievable would have the same result.That would explain why they all keep on going despite the fact that (according to most of them) there can only be one that is actually true. [qs]Not certainly nonsene, no, any more than the supernatural elements of any other belief are certain nonsense. That part is up to you./qs
Well in the absence of ANY evidence for the supernatural components of ANY of the main religions and with no way to ascertain which of those that claim to have the exclusive truth actually does - The only rational decision would seem to be to have a healthy scepticism to them all and go where the physical evidence leads.

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?

Christianity and Islam can't both be true: either 2.1 billion people have been fooled, or 1.4 billion. Or both. So are a lot of other things which I don't consider to have "withstood scrutiny".How relentless was that scrutiny, anyway? What sort of thing are we talking about?

Not all but religious ones tend to have a high element of that. Afetrlife, some sort of entity that loves YOU etc. etc. Comfort and inspiration seem to be widely cited reasons for religious convictions. I am sure you could not. But abandoning beliefs that you have been raised with and that provide comfort and security in times of crisis would be difficult even if all the evidence suggested those beliefs were totally unfounded. No? There is a long history of physical evidence debunking supernatural explanations. Fire, weather, fertility, gravity etc. etc. etc. have all been attributed to the supernatural at one point or another. If anything it seems that this debunking trend is likely to continue.In the event of their being genuinely supernatural phenomenon (e.g. Gods) then it would require that they leave physical evidence of their existence I guess (no idea what that ould be). Hence the whole 'science cannot disprove God......' thing that leads to forums such as this and discussions such as this one.

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?

Well isn't that what IDists and the like are attempting with irreducible complexity etc. etc??
Aren't supposed miracles held up as physical evidence of Gods existence by the Catholic church?If we could observe supernatural entities undertaking tasks that leave physical effects (creating universes, forming life, turning water into wine, raising people from the dead - you know the kind of thing) then that would indeed constitute physical evidence of their existence would it not? Not all Christians believe in hell. Many that do would claim it only applies if you are really bad and do not seek forgiveness and repentance. I have yet to meet anybody who considers themselves a bad person and all mainstreams religions reward 'good' people.To say religion does not tell people what they need to hear at times is to deny one of the main reasons for it's enduring appeal in all it's various forms.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

thanks for attempting to clarify my point.I was at the point where I was just repeating myself.

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.

Can we get back to discussing the OP, about the possible tomb of Jesus and family?Did anyone see the show last night and wish to comment?

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Alright, as I said in an earlier post, the Discovery channel was set to put out a special on the "Tomb of Jesus" on March 4^th, which was last night. I said that I would post a critique, so here I am. I believe it was a two hour special, but I only managed to stay awake for about 45 minutes of it. (No, that doesn't mean that it was boring to me. I just had to wake up at 0400 this morning for work).Anyway, I wanted to see the whole special because what I did see was interesting and hope to see the rest of it soon. I have to say that while I saw many discrepencies and fanciful ways to tie some facts with others, the treatment and tone of the special wasn't as bad as I expected. I also thought that the archeological work conducted, as well as their overall desire to cover various angles to mitigate error on their part. For those that are not in America or for those who missed the program, here is an overview of the special.Let me know what you think and we'll take it from there. Besides, as Adminasgara said, we have been drifting off topic. Perhaps this will steer it back in the right direction.

---

"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