Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus Tomb Found
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 1 of 242 (387118)
02-26-2007 11:54 AM


BBC NEWS | Middle East | Jesus tomb found, says film-maker
quote:
Jesus had a son named Judah and was buried alongside Mary Magdalene
This line interested me:
quote:
statistical analysis and DNA show the tomb is that of Jesus.
It's not clear from the article, but do they have a sample of Jesus's DNA?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2007 12:15 PM Heathen has not replied
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 02-26-2007 12:21 PM Heathen has not replied
 Message 5 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 02-26-2007 3:21 PM Heathen has not replied
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 02-26-2007 4:22 PM Heathen has not replied
 Message 8 by joshua221, posted 02-26-2007 6:08 PM Heathen has not replied
 Message 11 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 02-26-2007 7:02 PM Heathen has not replied
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-27-2007 1:35 PM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 10 of 242 (387174)
02-26-2007 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by joshua221
02-26-2007 6:28 PM


prophex writes:
Please, admit you know nothing, and stop shouting this garbage as if it is worthy of a glance.
People in glass houses....etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by joshua221, posted 02-26-2007 6:28 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 19 of 242 (387241)
02-27-2007 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by AnswersInGenitals
02-26-2007 7:43 PM


AiG writes:
In the documentary or in the coffin?
*Badum Tish!*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 02-26-2007 7:43 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 24 of 242 (387276)
02-27-2007 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hyroglyphx
02-27-2007 1:35 PM


NJ writes:
You aren't ever going to find Jesus in any tomb in any place on earth because He rose from the dead. All praise, honor, and glory to Him. Amen
Interesting how you fill a post with logical evidence to disprove the "Jesus-tomb" find, all the time insisting that there is no evidence to support the claims.. and then in one fell swoop you turn your back on this very reasoning and claim (without evidence)that he infact floated up into the sky...
Astounding. Simply astounding and completely indicative of the fundamentalist's reliance on dishonesty to maintain their beliefs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-27-2007 1:35 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-27-2007 6:57 PM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 32 of 242 (387320)
02-27-2007 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Hyroglyphx
02-27-2007 6:57 PM


NJ writes:
Since Judea was under Roman occupation, it were the chief priests who collaborated with the Roman procurators. All parties involved knew that Jesus preached that He would raise from the dead and discussed how to secure the tomb with guards. Once it was discovered that the tomb was in fact empty, the charge fell on the guards as a story of Jesus' disciples must have come and stolen the body from inept Roman centurians. Why? Because they couldn't deny that His tomb was empty and had to come up with an alternative explanation. So the polemic of the disciple story, that they stole the body, was circulated. The fact that the Jewish leaders never denied that Jesus' tomb was empty, but only tried to explain it away is compelling evidence that the tomb was in fact empty.
a compelling story. How are you sure it's the truth?
NJ writes:
What is "dishonest" about believing that Jesus Christ, unquestionably the most popular man in the history of history, did in fact raise from the dead as He prophesied beforehand? Look, if you don't believe it, that;s on you. You'll have a chance to ask Him yourself whether or not He raised from the dead.
What's dishonest is that you have such a double standard. On the one hand your are happy to cite lack of evidence as reason enough to iscount the "jesus tomb" story, while on the other you are able to aadmit lack of evidence while still maintaining your jesus myth.
Either you require evidence for your beliefs /opinions or you don't.
If you mix and match where it suits, it undermines your arguments and opinions
Edited by Creavolution, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-27-2007 6:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-28-2007 12:29 PM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 41 of 242 (387414)
02-28-2007 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hyroglyphx
02-28-2007 12:29 PM


NJ writes:
I'm gonna get a little existential for a minute. How do you anything is the truth? How can there be truth unless it is absolute? What predicates reality? What is, or what are, the defining principle(s) that constitute reality? Is it not possibly the apex of mankind’s endless questions, listed high on the totem with the other biggie, ”what is the meaning of life?’ Reality is the quantitative summation of all things true. But as the Roman Procurator famously and profoundly stated to Jesus, "What is Truth""
Deep stuff indeed, but not one word of it explains why you require evidence for some deicions but not for others. You've basically said "well i don't know if anything is real, so I'm going to decide that this is"
meaningless.
NJ writes:
no one espouses things they don't actually believe.
If that was true the world would be a wonderful place.
NJ writes:
But the fact remains that Jesus, the most historic figure in human history, is still missing.
Did he in FACT exist?
("the most historic figure in human history"..... what are you on about?)
NJ writes:
There is ample evidence aside from the Bible that not only did He exist, but that He was despised and thought of as a troublemaker which necessitated His crucifixion.
What evidence? it's clear that Jesus was a common name.
NJ writes:
What is hypocritical is that no one seems to concern themselves with whether Plato or Hector really existed.
The teachings of Plato or hector are not so controversial. People do not live or die because of their belief in Plato or hector.
NJ writes:
If somebody really wanted to question Jesus' deity, they could question that with a reasonable amount of suspicion, ut not His personhood.
I don't question that there was someone called jesus running about in Nazereth/judea all those years ago, there may have been hundreds, thousands maybe.
The question of his divinity is more, much more than the side issue you seem to make of it here
Edited by Creavolution, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-28-2007 12:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Brian, posted 02-28-2007 1:29 PM Heathen has not replied
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-28-2007 10:14 PM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 73 of 242 (387573)
03-01-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Hyroglyphx
02-28-2007 10:14 PM


NJ writes:
The most influential figure of all time is inarguably Jesus of Nazareth. No other person has been spoken about more than He. Heck,
every religion has it influential figures, that are talked about by millions of people every day. Mohammed, Buddha, Vishnu....which one's existed? which ones were divine?
NJ writes:
he was the reason why time was divided between ancient and contemporary time
There are many calendars in the world. the Christian one just so happens to be dominant.
NJ writes:
First of all, the name "Jesus" is a Latin rendering which was not in any sense common. Do you mean Yehoshua, Yeshu, Yeshua, etc?
yes. Jesus, or Joshua or... or... whatever he was called in his local, native tongue was a common name.
NJ writes:
creavolution writes:
The teachings of Plato or hector are not so controversial. People do not live or die because of their belief in Plato or hector.
What does that have to do with the historical value? It doesn't. We aren't even getting into His deity right now. Right now you appear to be questioning his existence.
And I didn't mention deity in that sentance, merely pointing out one reason why Jesus may be talked about so much, and why his existance may and should be called into question.
If the people on this planet are going to give themselves t this belief system totally (as, I suspect Xians would prefer) shouldn't we at least be CERTAIN that this guy existed? Shouldn't we move to erase ALL doubt? Then, the question of his divinity should be addressed.
NJ writes:
I've already shown that extra-biblical evidence corroborates
from what I can see your extra biblical evidence has been rebutted. It seems The Sanhedrin Plainly appears to be talking about a diferent person (with the same name) and a different execution.
there's plenty of "corroboration" for people performing faith healings every day, jesus appearing on toast, Mary appearing on an underpass wall.. all reported, possible in many sources. Does it make it any more believable just because it appears in 4 newspapers rather than one? No.
If the source is dodgy, then no matter how many times you reprint it it remains dodgy.
Edited by Creavolution, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-28-2007 10:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 74 of 242 (387574)
03-01-2007 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by anastasia
02-28-2007 10:42 PM


ana writes:
He says; why do you require evidence for the tomb of Jesus, and NOT require evidence for His resurrection?
Yes, that is what I meant before NJ began his dodge and weave manoeuvre..
ana writes:
So, while there is no physical evidence for the Biblical Jesus, the Bible can be believed.
and why not the Qu'ran? why not any other religious text? why not Lord of the Rings? Why not James Joyce's Ulysses?
You have left the realm of reasonable debate with this sentance.
ana writes:
I can believe the Bible until I have a good reason not to. I don't need evidence to believe, I need evidence to stop believing.
So what 'evidence' do you have that stops you believing in faeries? leprechauns? any other myths?
ana writes:
there is no knowledge that this tomb is the real deal.
It is interesting that you cannot apply this reasoning to belief in Christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 02-28-2007 10:42 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 11:47 AM Heathen has replied
 Message 79 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 11:55 AM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 78 of 242 (387584)
03-01-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by anastasia
03-01-2007 11:47 AM


ana writes:
The Bible can be taken as accurate until proved otherwise.
So..Shy do you not apply this reasoning to other religious texts?
Have you Proved that the Qu'ran is not true? how have you proved this?
Have you done the same for Buddhist Texts? for Hindu texts? for Sikh texts?
ana writes:
It would be silly to believe the second one over the first for no reason.
But that is exactly what you do, when you accept the bible, above all other religious texts. You yourself state that unless one text is disproven you believe it.
Please tell me the process you went through to Disprove all other religious texts. I would be fascinated to see if you apply this rigour to the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 11:47 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 12:04 PM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 81 of 242 (387590)
03-01-2007 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by anastasia
03-01-2007 11:55 AM


ana writes:
You don't need evidence to believe, you need it to not believe.
So... You do NOT believe in the teachings of the Qu'ran right?
You say you need evidence not to believe this. Where is your evidence?
If I say to you that there's a big green alien standing beside me with feather dusters for hands and spaghetti for hair.
Do you believe me?
if not, why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 11:55 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 12:25 PM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 87 of 242 (387599)
03-01-2007 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by anastasia
03-01-2007 12:25 PM


You are either misreading me or simply refusing to answer.
I'll make it easier...
Question:
Does this requirement for evidence (to NOT believe) reach to other things outside christianity?
yes or no?
If no:
Why not?
If yes:
What evidence have you been privvy to that makes you not believe all the other religious stories?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 12:25 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 92 of 242 (387613)
03-01-2007 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by anastasia
03-01-2007 12:04 PM


ana writes:
Of course I have not proved that any other texts are not true
So, by your reasoning
ana writes:
I don't need evidence to believe, I need evidence to stop believing.
you must believe in them untill they have been disproven.
ana writes:
I can't even cover all of those in a life-time, let alone make a judgement on the tens of thousands of other religious texts.
Well it seems a little dishonest to require a "disproof" of christianity but not for any other theory. Either your claim that:
ana writes:
I don't need evidence to believe, I need evidence to stop believing.
holds or it doesn't.
I simply want to know why this holds for the bible but not for any other text. If you cannot answer that you should question why it is you have this double standard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 12:04 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 3:37 PM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 99 of 242 (387648)
03-01-2007 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by anastasia
03-01-2007 3:37 PM


ana writes:
Nah, I never said any such thing.
Uhm... that's exactly what you said...
ana in msg68 writes:
I don't need evidence to believe, I need evidence to stop believing
ana in msg79 writes:
You don't need evidence to believe, you need it to not believe.
and you certainly consider it true for the bible:
ana in msg76 writes:
The Bible can be taken as accurate until proved otherwise.
so why not other texts?
ana writes:
Say I read a biography. I can believe it. Until, I read another which says something contradictory.
Seems like you simply choose what to believe and what not to, 'evidence' (for or against) doesn't even enter the picture. Why the pretense?
as shown in msg68
ana writes:
So, while there is no physical evidence for the Biblical Jesus, the Bible can be believed.
ana writes:
Why? I am not scrutinizing any other theory at this time in my life.
It doesn't appear that you have scrutinised Christianity very much either. but you accept it as truth.
This thread actually started with the intention of finding out what DNA evidence the supporters of the Jesus tomb actually had.
It has subsequently got lost in the debate about when evidence is necessary.
It is apparent that no evidence is required for unflinching, unquestioning belief in the ressurection of jesus. I find this quite startling, and worrying that people are so desperatly unable to deal with the realities of their own lives that they have to assume belief in a poorly corroborated, poorly understood 2000 year old story, in order to provide them with some comfort, and some hope of an afterlife.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 3:37 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 7:47 PM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 101 of 242 (387674)
03-01-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by anastasia
03-01-2007 7:47 PM


ana writes:
It is not such a strange thing that you should get all topsy-turvy
no-one's getting topsy turvy, I've just been asking questions to try to clarify some statements that you and nem have made.
ana writes:
the story of Jesus is not poorly understood,
in this thread alone we have contradictory versions of his execution. These raise doubts as to whether these reports are about the same guy.
THe church continues to repress the many gospaels that have arisen in favour of those currently accepted. If it's all so cut and dried, why would they need to hide further information?
ana writes:
I can't possibly be this fascinating
correct.
But as long as you keep responding to my posts, in such away as to highlight contradictions, you can keep expecting me to ask more questions. It's the engineer in me. If it bothers you, stop responding. simple.
ana writes:
What kind of evidence would YOU need to believe someone rose from the dead?
good question, I would say nothing short of witnessing the event myself, and corroboration by a number of IMPARTIAL scientists/doctors

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by anastasia, posted 03-01-2007 7:47 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by anastasia, posted 03-02-2007 10:50 AM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 109 of 242 (387745)
03-02-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by anastasia
03-02-2007 10:50 AM


ana writes:
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.
I agree that we need good evidence to establish whether these tombs are indeed those of jesus and his family.
BUT I also require good evidence to convince me that the gospels are truth. You, as you have stated, do not.
This is the double standard I am trying to understand. On the one hand you need evidence to prove something, on the other you do not.
ana writes:
and even if I was not a follower of Jesus, I would have the same questions. Namely, where is the corroborating evidence for a Jesus with a family plot in Jerusalem, a wife, a child, etc?
Yet you do not require corroborating evidence for you belief in jesus as a deity?
ana writes:
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.
So you will only accept evidence of Jesus existance if it agrees with the biblical account? And dismiss all else out of hand? thank you for admitting your own wilful ignorance.
ana writes:
The Bible might not be true, sure, but it is hard to know who could be the real Jesus outside of that account.
And that is precisely the problem. the Bible Might be wrong, and there is little else to corroborrate the stories therein. we do not have the evidence. evidence which you seem to require to even consider the jesus tomb find. but by your own admission will shun if it disagrees with the biblical account anyway.
ana writes:
I think the logical thing to do is look at extra-Biblcal evidence,
I agree, but there is precious little of that, and as we have seen in this thread much of it is unclear or contradictory
aa writes:
I think also that the supporters of the Jesus' tomb are banking a little too heavily on the idea that most of the public is already exposed to and unsurprised by the thought of a married Jesus
I certainly think they are trying to cash in on current thinking. And I have seen nothing (no evidence) that convinces me that their claims are genuine (hence my interest in the "DNA"). But I have also seen nothing (no evidence) that convinces me that the Bible is genuine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by anastasia, posted 03-02-2007 10:50 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by anastasia, posted 03-02-2007 12:55 PM Heathen has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024