Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 0/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus Tomb Found
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6031 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 166 of 242 (388301)
03-05-2007 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Hyroglyphx
03-05-2007 1:16 PM


Re: A critique of : "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"
I did catch it nemesis, and the special afterwards with Ted Koppel. That was the really good part. I was laughing very bad at some points when Simcha Jacobovici was dueling it out with the theological men, as well as Ted Koppel and the critics.
Over-all, I learned only a few new facts...the ties between the tomb and the story of Mary Magdalene as recorded in the Acts of Philip were interesting, possibly compelling, except that the Acts were of a much later date.
I also learned about what had been bugging me; why was there not more DNA testing between other family members and why was the maternal DNA the only part talked about. It seems the rest of the ossuaries had been vaccumed out, and there is no DNA to test.
Very curious about why, well, how, the tomb has been resealed, and what it would take for IAA to open it back up and allow the research to continue. It seems a bit odd to have such a controversial site under lock and key...
While they can't exactly place the James box at the site, it seems logical that it came from there...but I am interested mainly in a 'what if' reconstruction of Biblical events assuming the tomb is real.
What are the chances or liklihood that all members of the family would have landed up in one place?
How long would a son of Jesus remained incognito?
What if the John of the NT were the son of Jesus, as the show sort of theorizes?
Can we put what we have as far as text into place with these details, or would there be huge problems?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-05-2007 1:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-05-2007 4:26 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6031 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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 168 of 242 (388313)
03-05-2007 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by anastasia
03-05-2007 3:38 PM


Re: A critique of : "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by anastasia, posted 03-05-2007 3:38 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by anastasia, posted 03-05-2007 6:58 PM PaulK has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5037 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 169 of 242 (388319)
03-05-2007 4:24 PM


I can't believe that anyone over the age of 5 gives BS like this the time of day. There is no differece between this crap and the Wyatt, Moller, and Baugh garbage that we have discussed before.
As long as people watch this BS, there will be more and more of them appearing. My advice would be to work out roughly how much time that you would allocate to these silly 'specials' and then spend the equivalent time studying history and archaeolgy, even at a very basic level, then you would realise just how poor these programmes are.
It is beyond me how anyone can take this nonsense seriously.
Brian.

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Heathen, posted 03-05-2007 5:00 PM Brian has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 242 (388321)
03-05-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by anastasia
03-05-2007 2:50 PM


Re: A critique of : "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"
I did catch it nemesis, and the special afterwards with Ted Koppel. That was the really good part. I was laughing very bad at some points when Simcha Jacobovici was dueling it out with the theological men, as well as Ted Koppel and the critics.
Every time something surfaces that might be able to sleight the gospels in any way, Discovery has put on a special advertised with a lot of fanfare. This one was slightly less overt about its maligning tradition, but the implicit goal was still present.
Over-all, I learned only a few new facts...the ties between the tomb and the story of Mary Magdalene as recorded in the Acts of Philip were interesting, possibly compelling, except that the Acts were of a much later date.
I did watch that part too, but I was not very impressed. For all of the whining done about how the gospels are a late insertion, and therefore, are unreliable because they are not contemporary with Jesus, should be even less compelled to trust the veracity of the gospel of Phillip. Aside from it running counter to virtually every Christian doctrine, it was a much later insertion. In fact, the book of Phillip is a prime example of why the Nicene council was instituted in the first place.
I also learned about what had been bugging me; why was there not more DNA testing between other family members and why was the maternal DNA the only part talked about. It seems the rest of the ossuaries had been vaccumed out, and there is no DNA to test.
Or their emphasis that the Mariamne (Mara) tomb and that of Yeshua ben Yosef weren't related by blood. All it proved were that those two were not maternally related. It proved nothing beyond that. Secondly, they simply erased any mention of the other ossuaries, like Matia, whom they made allusions to being Mattityahu (Matthew of the Bible). Why not provide a DNA signature on those bones?
Very curious about why, well, how, the tomb has been resealed, and what it would take for IAA to open it back up and allow the research to continue. It seems a bit odd to have such a controversial site under lock and key.
Indeed. I didn't think about that aspect. I'm glad you mentioned it.
While they can't exactly place the James box at the site, it seems logical that it came from there...but I am interested mainly in a 'what if' reconstruction of Biblical events assuming the tomb is real.
I had to go to bed right before they got into the patina evidence, so I can't comment on that part right now.
What are the chances or liklihood that all members of the family would have landed up in one place?
Well, its very likely that a family all be placed in a family plot, but the problem is, there is a slew of missing people from the family of Jesus. Others seem to have any earthly reason for being in that tomb, which makes its more unreasonable to suggest that it is Jesus' family tomb.
How long would a son of Jesus remained incognito?
Or how was it that no one knew where Jesus was buried since all of this controversy was swirling around about his death and resurrection? Plus, the other specials headed by Discovery claim, like the Di Vinci Code, that Mary Magdalene fled to France where she lived out her days with the son, remember? So how can her and Jesus' alleged son be both in France and in Jerusalem? Oops...
What if the John of the NT were the son of Jesus, as the show sort of theorizes?
I didn't see that part. I can't comment on it right now.
Can we put what we have as far as text into place with these details, or would there be huge problems?
From what I did see, it was much-ado-about nothing. I saw people trying to make leads where the leads didn't actually suggest. I mean, for an archeologist and a film Director as large as James Cameron, thinking you might have the tomb of Jesus is the motherload. There is no doubt that they could resist the temptation of trying to piece it together, whether it were true or not.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by anastasia, posted 03-05-2007 2:50 PM anastasia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-05-2007 9:38 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1361 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 171 of 242 (388327)
03-05-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Brian
03-05-2007 4:24 PM


And how do you propose we form an opinion one way or the other without watching it?
take YOUR word for it?
It's all very well to dismiss it out of hand if it's your area of study. but that is not the case for us all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Brian, posted 03-05-2007 4:24 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Brian, posted 03-06-2007 2:22 AM Heathen has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 172 of 242 (388341)
03-05-2007 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by anastasia
03-05-2007 11:46 AM


Re: Invented People
blessed is he who has not seen and yet believes
If you were gonna design a huge hoax is that not exactly the sort of mindset and doctrien you would set out to foster?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by anastasia, posted 03-05-2007 11:46 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6031 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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 174 of 242 (388395)
03-05-2007 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Hyroglyphx
03-05-2007 4:26 PM


Re: A critique of : "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"
In fact, the book of Phillip is a prime example of why the Nicene council was instituted in the first place.
The idea that the First Council of Nicaea determined the canon of the New Testament, though widespread, appears to be spurious.
Creeds and Canons of the Council of Nicaea
In fact, the Church didn't need to decide what was canonical until St Jerome translated the Vulgate, and by then the canon was pretty much fixed by tradition, and the main outstanding question was whether to include the Apocrypha. (St Jerome didn't want to, but was over-ruled.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-05-2007 4:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-05-2007 10:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 242 (388408)
03-05-2007 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Dr Adequate
03-05-2007 9:38 PM


Re: A critique of : "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"
The idea that the First Council of Nicaea determined the canon of the New Testament, though widespread, appears to be spurious.
Why is that?
In fact, the Church didn't need to decide what was canonical until St Jerome translated the Vulgate, and by then the canon was pretty much fixed by tradition, and the main outstanding question was whether to include the Apocrypha. (St Jerome didn't want to, but was over-ruled.)
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.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit typo
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Typo

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-05-2007 9:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-05-2007 10:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 177 by anastasia, posted 03-05-2007 10:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 178 by arachnophilia, posted 03-06-2007 12:51 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 176 of 242 (388409)
03-05-2007 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Hyroglyphx
03-05-2007 10:21 PM


First Council Of Nicaea
Why is that?
I gave you a link to what they actually decided there. None of it refers to the canon of the New Testament or to Gnosticism. Their main business seems to have been the condemnation of Arian Christology, and Arians used the same canon as more orthodox Christians.
The gospel of Phillip is not apocryphal, its a gnostic and pseudopigraphal text ...
That's my point. When they came to decide what went into the Bible, they didn't even consider Philip.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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 6031 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

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1422 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 178 of 242 (388430)
03-06-2007 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Hyroglyphx
03-05-2007 10:21 PM


(friendly nitpick)
The gospel of Phillip is not apocryphal,
quote:
Main Entry: apoc·ry·phal
Pronunciation: -f&l
Function: adjective
1 : of doubtful authenticity : SPURIOUS
2 often capitalized : of or resembling the Apocrypha
synonym see FICTITIOUS
your point is correct: it's not in the apocrypha. but you worded that badly. as an adjective, "apocryphal" generally means something else -- the first definition. saying something is "not apocryphal" would imply it's genuine. which is probably not what you meant to do.


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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 179 of 242 (388440)
03-06-2007 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by anastasia
03-05-2007 6:58 PM


Re: A critique of : "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by anastasia, posted 03-05-2007 6:58 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5037 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 180 of 242 (388449)
03-06-2007 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Heathen
03-05-2007 5:00 PM


And how do you propose we form an opinion one way or the other without watching it?
Would you waste an hour of your life watching a TV programme by people who claim to have found Noah's Ark, or Chariot wheels in the Red Sea?
These programmes are all gimmicks, common sense tells you that there is no way to prove that anyone has found Jesus' tomb.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Heathen, posted 03-05-2007 5:00 PM Heathen 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