Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus Tomb Found
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 167 of 242 (388311)
03-05-2007 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Hyroglyphx
03-05-2007 1:16 PM


Re: A critique of : "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"
I have another question to pose.
Tradition has it that the tomb of Jesus has already been found. You are aware, I know, of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
There is nothing there as far as evidence which remains, the site has been destroyed and rebuilt numerous times.
But the scenerio here is not exactly like that of some other historical finds, Pompei for instance, where science had taken a relatively new interest in searching for evidence. People have been looking for the tomb of Jesus since the day of His death just about.
So, what are the odds that the earliest christians knew less about the topography and customs of Jerusalem than we do now? What are the odds that this new tomb, if it had been the bural place of Jesus, would be obscured and undiscovered for so very long, while people lived next to and on top of it, played in it, etc.?
There is no doubt that this tomb has been newly discovered, that is not what I would suggest, but how could it have escaped the notice of so many early christians and other inhabitants of Jerusalem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-05-2007 1:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2007 3:50 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 173 of 242 (388360)
03-05-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by PaulK
03-05-2007 3:50 PM


Re: A critique of : "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"
PaulK writes:
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
People have a long memory when it comes to tradition. Constantine 'knew' where the site was, but what he didn't know was whether that was authentic, although he believed it was, and supposedly found evidence.
But, topographically, there is no proof that it was the wrong area, and the site has not been discounted in any sense that I know of.
And the tomb where the ossuaries were kept need not be the tomb in the biblical story - why should it be ?
There are two ways I am reading this sentence; do you mean that there may have been two tombs, or just that the NT may not be right?
There are seriosu problems with the argument but that is not one of them.
Well, the other possible tombs have no bearing on the validity of this one, but the locations are worth considering just a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2007 3:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 2:04 AM anastasia has not replied
 Message 181 by Brian, posted 03-06-2007 2:24 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 177 of 242 (388414)
03-05-2007 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Hyroglyphx
03-05-2007 10:21 PM


Re: A critique of : "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"
nemesis writes:
The gospel of Phillip is not apocryphal, its a gnostic and pseudepigraphal text, so either way it doesn't matter how they viewed the Apocrypha because its not relevant.
You must remember that was was considered apocrypha has changed many times. What we call pseudepigraphia was likely at one time apocrypha.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-05-2007 10:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 193 of 242 (388512)
03-06-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Brian
03-06-2007 9:20 AM


Re: Ill need to wait till I can research this further
Brian writes:
Do you have any evidence of the Romans allowing common criminals to be interred in a family tomb?
Do you have any evidence that there was a crucifixion?
It is so confusing. We christians keep being asked to think critically, and then we get told to ignore the whole thing as a gimmick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Brian, posted 03-06-2007 9:20 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Brian, posted 03-06-2007 12:56 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 194 of 242 (388513)
03-06-2007 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by PaulK
03-06-2007 8:38 AM


Re: Ill need to wait till I can research this further
PaulK writes:
As I said earlier I;m VERY doubtful of the idea that it's precise enough to narrow it doen to a single tomb, and the evidence is that the James ossuary is NOT the allegedly "missing" ossuary from the tomb (it's the wrong size and it has an inscription - while the suppsoedly missing ossuary was kept separately because it didn't have an inscription and that is why it isn't with the others. So, no DNA match, just evidence that the two ossuaries were kept in very similar conditions.
Correct, as per the scientist who did the patina samples. The evidence was not precise enough for a positive ID of the ossuary, and is 'consistant with' the tomb, but not a 'match' in the exact sense that DNA would be.
There are two different stories about the 'James' ossuary. According to Simcha J and his professor cohort, it IS the correct size.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 8:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Brian, posted 03-06-2007 1:00 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 197 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 1:12 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 198 of 242 (388553)
03-06-2007 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by PaulK
03-06-2007 1:12 PM


Re: Ill need to wait till I can research this further
PaulK writes:
It must at least have the name James on it to be of any help.
In response to you and Brian;
The inscription, yes, said to be fake...but now we have 'part' of the inscription is fake, i.e., 'James son of Joseph' is real, 'brother of Jesus' is a contrivance. Although, if someone had stolen this ossuary from the tomb, the fact that he no longer had that connection to Jesus would be a probable cause to add the inscription, no? And he might even feel slightly justified at that?
The simple fact that we have to try, as lay people, to decide who to believe when it comes to dimensions, is pretty sad. Can't we just get the dimensions of both and stop taking someone's word for it? I am not sure that Simcha and friends are lying aout this, as it seemed that this was their main 'evidence' for the rest of the entire story. If you saw the after-special, they stopped quavering and fidgeting when it came to the size.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 1:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 1:59 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 213 by ramoss, posted 03-06-2007 7:52 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 199 of 242 (388557)
03-06-2007 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Brian
03-06-2007 12:56 PM


Re: Ill need to wait till I can research this further
Brian writes:
Of course, reams of evidence in fact.
Also, lots of evidence that executed common criminals were thrown into a common grave.
No, Brian, I am sure you understood the question. We can either follow the Biblical account, or no, but if we are going to get into one tomb, two tombs, three tombs, you might as well get into 'no criminal death' as well.
Are we looking for evidence to confirm the Bible? Because if we look for all possible alternate explanations, that is never-ending.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Brian, posted 03-06-2007 12:56 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by ringo, posted 03-06-2007 1:41 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 203 by Brian, posted 03-06-2007 2:09 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 206 of 242 (388574)
03-06-2007 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Brian
03-06-2007 2:09 PM


Re: Ill need to wait till I can research this further
Brian writes:
Essentially you are saying that either the Bible is 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate, there's no inbetweenies for you?
I don't have a problem with in-betweenies, but as I said, if you are going to look for any possible in-between explanation, you have to consider that there was no crucifixion. Not strongly consider, not consider over other ideas, but at least allow the possibility, and thus;
I'm not getting into any tomb because ASAIK there's no evidence that Roman's allowed executed common criminals to be interred in a family tomb.
The Roman customs would be a good indication for the falsity of the new tomb, but an indication of nothing else whatsoever if we bring an alternate biography into play.
You are being a Biblical literalist. You are using the Bible to discount Simcha. That is good, that is fine, that is the primary tool we have as a resource...but if you all want us to think critically, where does one start?
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Brian, posted 03-06-2007 2:09 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Brian, posted 03-06-2007 4:17 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 212 of 242 (388636)
03-06-2007 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Brian
03-06-2007 4:17 PM


Re: Ill need to wait till I can research this further
Brian writes:
Is it plausible that the Romans handed Jesus’ body over? Well, to look for a satisfactory answer for this we need to rely on external sources, and they say that the Romans threw the criminal bodies into a common grave. If there are no reports to the contrary, then it is less likely that Jesus’ body was handed over. If there are a few, or even many, reports of the Romans handing over criminal bodies, then the Bible claim that Jesus was placed in a tomb is more likely.
Thank you for your response. I don't want to argue what I said or thought I said or meant to say, so I will skip that part if possible.
There is the obvious explanation to why Jesus' body might have been handed over still viable, no? That Pilate found no fault in Jesus, and might have easily given him up for burial? Jesus was crucified, but according to the Romans, He wasn't really a criminal. So, was there any Jewish opposition to the burial, or would the attention be elsewhere since it was Passover/Sabbath?
The thing is, it is not impossible, or even improbable that someone was crucified in the period in question, the Romans crucified tens of thousands of people, sometimes thousands were crucified at the same time, and so there really is no good reason to doubt that Jesus was crucified.
I know, I as just thinking about the many threads here were it comes about there is really no good reason to think that Jesus lived at all.
How can I be a literalist when I am denying that there was a tomb whilst the Bible clearly indicates that there was a tomb?
Ok, partial literalist, and that is what I have been saying all along. How do we get anywhere without using the Bible in part, and if we are using it less than 100%, where do we draw the lines? I know that is irrelevent, and we can only go as far as we can, leaving the rest up to the historians who ultimately tell the story.
The Roman customs could indicate the falsity of a tomb, and if the new biography includes a tomb then wouldn’t the Roman custom undermine the reliability of the new biography?
The new bio in this case is the same old Bible. That already has a tomb, and the Pilate thing comes up again. How likely is it that people living in Jerusalem at that time would have been ignorant of the Roman customs, and accepted the story of the Bible instead? Since they looked for and found a tomb back then, they were obviously not preoccupied with Roman custom.
So, I would say that one should start by gaining as good an understanding of the period and location as one can, then look at the plausibility of each event.
My question was sort of rhetorical, but as you were talking before about 'taking this seriously' and sort of mocking people who watched the film, that irked me just a little, because sometimes things like this give impetus to folks to get looking at things that they had never thought of. It gives a starting point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Brian, posted 03-06-2007 4:17 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Brian, posted 03-07-2007 6:45 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 215 of 242 (388647)
03-06-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 8:50 PM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
nemesis writes:
What is inconsistent about what I'm saying?
Everything, but its not your fault. The whole thing is inconsistant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 8:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 217 of 242 (388649)
03-06-2007 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by ramoss
03-06-2007 7:52 PM


Links for the Ossuary
Here's one
and another...
hope that helps.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ramoss, posted 03-06-2007 7:52 PM ramoss has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 218 of 242 (388650)
03-06-2007 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by alacrity fitzhugh
03-06-2007 9:37 PM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
alacrity fitzhugh writes:
Jesus was tried, convicted and executed like a common criminal.
I missed the conviction, I think. I thought Pilate said "I find no guilt in this man" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 03-06-2007 9:37 PM alacrity fitzhugh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 03-06-2007 10:29 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 220 of 242 (388660)
03-06-2007 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by alacrity fitzhugh
03-06-2007 10:29 PM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
alacrity fithugh writes:
By consenting, he convicted even if it was with him protesting against it.'
From your link, Pilate did not convict. But this is more relevant to what I was discussing with Brian about Roman burial customs. If the Romans didn't find guilt, I would like a reason why they would not allow a decent burial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 03-06-2007 10:29 PM alacrity fitzhugh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by ReverendDG, posted 03-07-2007 4:29 AM anastasia has not replied
 Message 226 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 03-07-2007 1:40 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 225 of 242 (388694)
03-07-2007 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Brian
03-07-2007 6:45 AM


Re: Ill need to wait till I can research this further
Brian writes:
But, here we go again, uncritically accepting the Gospel account at face value!
No. It is not important what I accept of don't when it comes to plausibility.
Examine the text in question and then think about how plausible this alleged narrative actually is.
Did Pilate often have an interview with common criminals before their execution?
The thing is, Brian, that parallel evidence is a good solidifier, but human nature is what it is. People make exceptions to rules, and even if Pilate had never ever done so before or after Jesus, it is definitely not impossible that he did that time.
As far as the episode with Barabbas is concerned, it is has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that this story is fiction.
There are far too many unlikely events for the story to be taken seriously.
There were people present during the interview with Pilate, but disciples I don't know. I am not sure of any particulars which make the Barabbas story unlikely. Did the Romans have a custom, or not?
Plus, if the Jews really did want Jesus dead why didn’t they just lynch Him as they did with Stephen?
You mean, with out Roman consent?
The blame had to be shifted from the Romans on to another party, and the Jewish nation was blamed and has suffered terribly because of this invention.
Except for that little part about how Jesus Himself and the author of Hebrews wanted to convert the Jews as well as the gentiles, I would believe your story. If the Jewish people did not want Jesus dead, who did?
Any Jewish opposition to a burial is immaterial. Throwing into a common grave and NOT allowing a family burial was a Roman custom, nothing at all to do with the Jews.
I am not supposing a family burial. I am asking whether, if indeed the body was handed over as an exception to the rule, and if Pilate had not considered Jesus criminal, there would be opposition by the Jewish people to the body being buried in a non-criminal grave? It is not immaterial. It is a completely logical question to ask about the Bible account.
Even if we do, authors in ancient times didn’t think about writing critical accounts, they weren’t preoccupied with the plausibility of events or even preoccupied with avoiding contradictions in their writings.
Can you just forget about ancient critical accounts and use logic? I will ask you again; the tomb of Jesus had been 'found' and worshipped over almost since Jesus' very death. Why would any early christian in Jerusalem look for a tomb at all if they knew the Roman customs? I am not asking that they write down their reasons or their memoirs, I am asking how you think that people living in that same time period could make the same mistake of looking for a tomb when they must have known full well about Roman criminal burial?
The resurrection myth requires a tomb, it needs to be obvious that Jesus’ body disappeared.
Speculative nonsense. There is a tomb in the story, that is all. If Jesus had been buried in a common criminal grave, there would be no end of spiritual allegory that could be attached, and there would certainly be no reason to think the resurrection story could not have happened and persisted. Finding a random empty tomb to fit the story proves nothing, and no one could even possibly determine whether a body was in it, had been removed or if it was still unused. Heck, they could have built a tomb just to satisfy the purpose. How obvious could it possibly be that a body has 'disappeared'?
Finally, don’t you find it a little suspicious that we don’t know where Jesus tomb is?
I find it more suspicious that you don't think the people who actually lived in that time period without these two thousand years seperating them in language, custom, and topography, didn't know where the tomb was or how Jesus was likely buried.
It is more suspicious that this new tomb, since it was opened and used to place bodies of family members who presumably died well after Jesus, and well into the period where the hype surrounding Him had begun, would never have been noticed by any of those who were looking AT THAT TIME for a tomb. How stupid could they possibly be to go worshipping at one tomb while some people would have known the whole time that there was a 'real' one?
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Brian, posted 03-07-2007 6:45 AM Brian has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 227 of 242 (388749)
03-07-2007 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by alacrity fitzhugh
03-07-2007 1:40 PM


Conviction
I am asking you and Mr Degreed Biblical Scholar, whether or not it is plausible for a Roman, specifically, Pilate, to have handed over a body for a burial that was not usual for Roman criminals, if the Roman himself did not find the victim guilty of any crime?
The more you keep telling me that the Sanhedrin convicted Jesus, the more reason I have for admitting the possibility that Pilate did indeed allow a decent burial.
Then you both want to say that the Jews were likely scape-goated, which is perfectly fine speculation, but please make up your minds. If the Jews were unfairly cast against Jesus, and the Romans wanted Him dead, I am still looking for evidence of that, so we can get on about this burial question.
You want to use the post from an Native American atheist to argue against a degreed biblical scholar
No, I was just letting you know that I was responding to your post even though my response was more relevent to a previous one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 03-07-2007 1:40 PM alacrity fitzhugh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by ringo, posted 03-07-2007 2:10 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 229 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 03-07-2007 2:47 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 230 by ramoss, posted 03-07-2007 3:43 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024