|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus Tomb Found | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Maybe it's something stupid like Ron Wyatt's claim to have found Jesus' blood. I suspect it's not quite that silly, though. But it's the same guy who was behind the "Exodus Decoded" rubbish so expect lots of misrepresentations of the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Under the circumstances I don't think that this crew could even manage to convince me.
But you're right. I don't think you could convince even most Christians with merely good evidence, and nothing would convince the fundamentalists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote:This is highly questionable. The only extra-Biblical source I know of that mentions Jesus in the context of his times is the contested reference in Josephus. Even if it is partly genuine Jesus is still not that important a figure, mentioned only in passing. quote: This probably isn't true. It isn't even in all the Gospels. Likely the author of "Matthew" (whoever he was) added the guards.
quote: We have no reliable evidence that this is the case. We don't have any accounts from non-Christian sources or even true contemporary sources. We don't even have a clear reference to the Empty Tomb story prior to Mark (itself written about 30 years after the events and likely second-hand at best). While the resurrection might have been important to Christianity the story isn't mentioned before then and the accounts we have don't clearly match - seeming instead to be elaborated and developed from whatever origin it had (which may not be any factual basis).
quote:It might be, if we knew it to be a fact. But we don't. Even if it were a fact it still doesn't establish what happened to the body. quote: Or is it the Garden Tomb ? The fact is that we don't know that either of them was the tomb, nor can we even be certain that there was a tomb.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: So far as I can see this isn't true - and that you would claim it speaks more to your agenda. What major finds did you have in mind ? The James Ossuary was pretty widely hyped, for instance. Aren't you counting that one ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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".
quote: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 ! quote: The piece you quote is found in the Babylonian Talmud. It probably dates form the 2nd Century, not the 1st. If it is a contemporay account and an offical record as you claim - unlikely as it is - then it must be consdiered an accurate account fo the events, at least where matters of fact are concerned. Which indicates that either the Gospel accounts contain significant erorrs - or it is about a different person altogether. So 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 ? None of these seem to offer much help to your position. (See here for more Talmud )
quote: Except for the 40 days searching for witnesses for his defence prior to the ececution.Or the execution being carried out by Jewish authorities and not Roman Or being stoned and hanged instead of being crucified. quote: 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.
quote: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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
If the account is anti-Chrisitan polemic it might have got the idea from Lent. But really there is no way to portray both it and the Gospels as trustworthy account of the execution of Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: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: 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: 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:I provided substantiation in the link in my post. quote: 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: 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: 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: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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
You must remember that Jerusalem was destroyed in Roman times and there seems to have been no surviving record of the location of the tomb in the time of Constantine. And the tomb where the ossuaries were kept need not be the tomb in the biblical story - why should it be ?
There are seriosu problems with the argument but that is not one of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Traditions may or may not be reliable. We don't know what Constantine had to guide him, if anything. The Garden Tomb site has also not been discounted. It's not that it's been proven wrong, it's that it hasn't been shown to be correct.
There may be three tombs ! If Jesus died a second time, years later, he would not necessarily be buried in the same tomb again. And after the bones were collected for the ossuary they could be placed in yet another tomb. Even if there was no resurrection the ossuary need not be placed in the tomb the bones were collected from (IIRC it usually would not be).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I'm still skeptical.
The makers have a record of misrepresentation and drawing spurious connections. Christopher Heard on his blog Higgaion did a long review of Exodus Decoded which should be read. On Higgaion now is some relevant information on the statistics. (I have to say that using the tombs found is a valid measure - there's no reason to suppose that the names made the tomb more likely to be found ! - but a smaller sample means less confidence in the results). Heard has some relevant discussion on this program including a link to this open letter. I would suggest that the major flaw is that the calculation relies on some questionable assumptions and a fairer probability would be less impressive. There are several articles on Higgaion about the identification with a number of links. Plenty to get into there. I'm not convinced that the patina can be used to locate an individual tomb. It certainly indicates similar conditions over a significant period of time, but I do question whether it is individual enough to indicate a particular tomb. Why not another, similar tomb nearby ? The dubious provenance of the James ossuary is also a big question - how did it get separated from the others ? If it were taken from the tomb before the discovery, then why were the remaining ones left ? We don't have a good record of even when it was found. {ADDED}
Joe Zias' comments are worth reading. Apparently the "missing" ossuary was plain and did not match the dimensions of the "James" ossuary. It seems unlikely that they came from the same tomb. (I would also add that the current owner of the James ossuary claims to have had it before the Talipot tomb was opened - and says that he has a photograph proving it. He could be lying and his evidence forged, but that hardly helps the authentiicty of the James ossuary.){End Addition} My impression so far is that this just another sensationalist "documentary" with little substance. It's not anti-Christian - it's the publicity, money and viewer figures that are the real targets. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
According to the open letter the probability is that a random selection of names from the ossuaries found would have as good a match. That is an appropriate comparison, since the means of sampling does not bias the sample for this measurement. And the odds are 600:1 not 600,000:1.
However it makes two assumptions that are definitely questionable. Firstly that the name associated with "Mary Magdalene" is a good match, and secondly that the "Yose" is not the "Joseph" who is the father of Jesus. If we reject these two assumptions the match is less good, the more so since we would expect "Joseph" to be in the tomb. It also ignores names that don't match the information we have, which arguably ought to be considered to make the match less good, thus increasing the probability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
You got your 600,000:1 odds somewhere. And I certainly don't beleive that it represents any meaningful number. The only meaningful statistic is the 600:1 estimate and even that is very questionable (and apparently highly dependant on the "Mary Magdalene" identification).
quote: I haven't seen any evidence that is that strong. And there is no DNA evidence that is significant - and none associated with "James" at all. All we know is that the DNA somehow associated with two of the ossuaries (which could be modern contamination in both cases) indicates different maternal lineages. So even if the DNA is valid the alleged "Mary Magdalene" could be a half sister, a cousin or the wife of any of the males in the tomb. So there is no "DNA evidence of James" and the DNA evidence we do have is of no real significance. And that is what you call "shocking" evidence ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Duplicate
Edited by PaulK, : Duplicate
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024