Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
43 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, kjsimons, PaulK, xongsmith (5 members, 38 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 878,011 Year: 9,759/23,288 Month: 774/1,544 Week: 166/322 Day: 20/66 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus Tomb Found
Brian
Member (Idle past 3516 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 181 of 242 (388451)
03-06-2007 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by anastasia
03-05-2007 6:58 PM


Re: A critique of : "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"
Constantine 'knew' where the site was,

I would take anything that Eusebius wrote about Constantine with a large pinch of salt. Eusebius is a well known liar, and even encouraged others to lie for Jesus.

Brian.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-06-2007 5:01 AM Brian has responded

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 3472 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 182 of 242 (388453)
03-06-2007 2:52 AM


I cant find any good discussion on this.
The Discovery Channel was supposed to have a webpage where people could discuss this, but I couldnt find it.

Aside from this site (little has been discussed since the program aired), this blog (link below) is the only discussion I have found.It has lots (like 200-300) of posts, but its divided between Christians screaming about this documentary being some "Satanic plot" (as well as the tired old oft-repeated comments that the USA is Gods gift to the world due to its "Christian values" plus Christians are chanting typical slogans) and somehwat more productive non-Christian comments.

http://israelitybites.blogspot.com/2007/02/bones-of-jesus-son-uncovered-in.html

Thats all I could find discussion wise.

The web is full of Christian articles claiming the Discovery Channel is part of some anti-Christian plot.Here (below) is the most semi-productive ones from Christians that covers some of the typical fears and how this may effect the popular prophetic views held by fundamentalists (the angle is radical mind you, but still related to the issue of peoples reactions,this has NOTHING to do with science).

http://aoreport.com/mag/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=608&Itemid=44

The mainstream-ish media reports (1 before the program aired,and 1 after)can be represented by the 2 links below.Both are highly dismissive of the program.

http://www.itv.com/news/entertainment_b396ce64db2748aede0aee6dcb629d2b.html (this one was before the program aired)

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet... (this one was after the program aired)

(UNRELATED NOTE:While discussing Discovery Channel documentaries , dont forget the most controversal one of all, one that got canceled 40 minutes before it aired, and all footage destroyed EXCEPT 1 copy that slipped through and found its way to the net
http://www.google.com/search... )

I saw the Jesus Tomb documentary but my wonderful cable company started running paid programming infomercials after the program ended.I suppose I will never get the chance to hear the "expert" commentary that followed the program.Hopefully they really were experts on the "Christian" side (that respond to the program with regards to the historical and archaeological issues), and not a bunch of "faith"-chanters.

From what I have seen, it will take time for us to digest the details, proofs, and accuracy of the programs presentation of data. I was left wondering about the statistical analysis of the possiblities of the names matching.I hope the after-program discussion covered that issue, as it wasnt completely clear to me.

It seems that the names matching (on the 5 tombs) were claimed to have a less than 1 in 600 chance of matching based on the frequency of the names and the odds against all 5 ossuaries containing the exact names of the family.And if the James Ossuary is proven to have come from there (and it seems a good possibility), then the odds are 1 in 30,000.

Its how they came to that statistical ratio that I seem to be confused over.

It would be impressive indeed if the statistics were based on the hypothetical amount of ossuaries ever deposited in a given location (Palestine or Jerusalem; the former would really be impressive but I think its the latter).

I dont know the exact numbers (and the statistical analysis is more complicated than this),but bear with me.....

That would mean that if say 100,000 ossuaries were hypothetically deposited in a given location from the 1st century (though only a small fraction found and examined),then the odds of all 5 names matching in a single tomb would be 1 in 60,000,000.With 100,000 tombs total, then that would be a 1 in 600 chance.

Impressive indeed.

And, if the James ossuary is included then the already overwhelming odds would prove this to be Jesus's remains by any reasonable standard.

But, are the odds based on actual number of recoverd tombs&ossuaries TO-DATE (which would make the ratio indicate something far more decisive in favor of the tomb actually containing Jesus, but due to a flawed statistical method which is based on a small amount of tombs ),which would actually be irrelevent? I would point out that the relevent number of burials is the total ever deposited, not the total discovered.Because the higher the number of tombs there are, the closer the odds are to finding an actual match (which this is clearly a "match" IMO)of names.And the less impressive the match would be.But with a small amount of tombs to factor in (and the tombs discovered are infact only a fraction of what was once and/or still is buried).

I need more confirmation that the 1 in 600 or 1 in 30,000 (with James) is based on sound reasoning.

Then,on the assumption that these odds are simply based on Jerusalem tombs, one has to wonder if all these names appearing in a single tomb is as impressive as 1in600 when all of tombs from larger Palestine are counted.

The stastical analysis is the issue and I havnt found any detailed discussion of all the factors included.Granted, I gave up searching on the web via search engines, because the discussion is larded by Christians screaming and chanting all kinds of non-relevant babble (damning everybody from archaeologists to Muslims, and not covering the actual issues at all).There is perhaps much more to the stastical analysis than I can think of.

My conclusion so far is that this "Jesus Tomb" is a powerful discovery and all but the most liberal forms of the Christian faith are severely challenged due to its discovery.I am also disgusted by the Christian reaction (the vocal fundamentalist Christians), which has represented the most dismissive and generally brain-dead form of reactionism one could ever imagine.The people that are most effected by this discovery should be spending the most effort in properly analysing it.Instead, the Christian's comments that I have read throughout the web have demonstrated nothing short of psychotic behavior in their responces.Damning everybody and anybody as "satanic* , and most of those they damn have *nothing* to do with this discovery (Muslims, Discovery channel,professors etc.).Infact archaeologists shouldnt even be blamed because they never pushed this discovery.The journalist who discovered this "Jesus Tomb" made it a point on the program that archaeologists and academics simply sat on this discovery despite its significance.

The Discovery Channel doesnt persue some anti-American, anti Christian agenda. The documentary was an important discovery and Christians should welcome such an airing.If the truth of the past is discovered-and this is actually the ossuary of jesus- then good (truth is truth); if this isnt true (as being the actual ossuary of Jesus)then the 100 million++++ fundamentalists can easily EDUCATE themselves on the historical/archaeological issues and then gladly show every last person on the planet (via private and polite conversation) why this isnt the actual ossuary.

Edited by AdminAsgara, : shortened long urls to fix page width


Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 3:31 AM Nimrod has responded
 Message 200 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 1:38 PM Nimrod has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16338
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 183 of 242 (388454)
03-06-2007 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Nimrod
03-06-2007 2:52 AM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Nimrod, posted 03-06-2007 2:52 AM Nimrod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Nimrod, posted 03-06-2007 5:36 AM PaulK has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 184 of 242 (388462)
03-06-2007 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Brian
03-06-2007 2:24 AM


Eusebius
I would take anything that Eusebius wrote about Constantine with a large pinch of salt. Eusebius is a well known liar, and even encouraged others to lie for Jesus.

I should like to see some evidence for that.

I've heard a lot of smack talked about Eusebius, but most of it turns out not to be true.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Brian, posted 03-06-2007 2:24 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Brian, posted 03-06-2007 2:15 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 3472 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 185 of 242 (388464)
03-06-2007 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by PaulK
03-06-2007 3:31 AM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
(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).

The issue is that there is only a 1 in 600,000 (if my quick reading was correct, I will closely follow more links later)chance of all 5 names matching up.

I feel that the 5 names are close enough to be a match to how the actual names could/would have been spelled.(there is somewhat of a question as to whether some of the 5 names were actual relatives and/or people likley to be buried with Jesus,though).

Why am I saying that the tombs *found* arent the issue , but the total amount of tombs (at least in Jerusalem)that ever existed (ist century) are what the statistic should be based on?

Because, the more tombs, the lower the ratio odds are (or the less strong the odds are)of being able to say that this is Jesus.Since there seems to be a 1 in 600,000 chance (I may be reading this wrong)of all 5 names matching , then we need to know how unlikly/likly the chances would be of a match.

If we accept the names are a match, then all that is left is to see what the chances are of more people happening to have these names beyond Jesus and his family.And buried in tombs.

We really need to know if there were only 1000 tombs ever used for ossuaries, or 6000.Thats the difference between a 600-1 match or a 100-1 match.

I also have to wonder how many 1st century Jerusalem families ever existed period, including those too poor to afford a tomb with ossuraries.

And what about near-by suburbs.

The fact that some of the "few"(?) tombs discovered (out of the total amount including those not uncovered)showed a match is impressive, but what of those that werent discovered.

If one believes the Gospel account then Jesus didnt have an ossuary after ressurecting and transfiguring.Was his family from Jerusalem (or would some of them have been from there when they died)? Would they have been likly to have been buried there.Lets assume they could have and then lets assume they could not have (at the same time,lets get our minds on a parallel track).Lets assume they could have been buried anywhere.

Lets assume that odds will suggest that of *all* families (poor ,illiterate, literate, wealthy) in the entirety of Palestine (not just Jerusalem), there *could* have been another with the same name's as Jesus and his family.Less than a 5-1 to chance perhaps. (I have no clue)

We need to, however,isolate the odds to just Jerusalem.

Now,lets get back to the issue I am responding to (your quote at top Paul).

One could say, well we only dug up 100 tombs and found the names, therefor the 1 in 600,000 chance means that this was a 1 in 6000 find. We already have given that a match was made. We would then wonder how rare it is over-all.

Even if we find 1 more match(say a 2nd cluster was found with the same 5 names in a single tomb), then I have to wonder what the odds are of at least 1 of those being Jesus.This would be an interesting lightening strikes twice scenario.

The issue always gets back to how many tombs there were that ever existed during that time period.

Our minds are still on the parallel tracks.

1 track says Jesus doesnt have a tomb (at least not with physical remains, and surely not with his family while his remains were dumped in an ossuary)and that his family could have been buried in Jerusalem (or somewhere else).This track assumes that another un-related family could have been buried in this location.

Another teack says that this "Jesus Tomb" *is* the Jesus ofthe Bible and his family.

The latter is quite possible.based on the liklyhood of the name cluster.

But the issue is the ratio based on the *TOTAL* amount of families who existed in Jerusalem and how closly that compares to the 1 in 600,000 odds of all 5 names matching. (or perhaps the total who could afford tombs)

Just because 1 match was already found with a small sample doesnt mean we base the ratio on only the tombs found.And to be honest, I dont know what "in existence" means exactly, as stupid as that makes me sound (scroll about 80% down on your link).

http://fisher.utstat.toronto.edu/andrey/OfficeHrs.txt

"in existence" as-in ones we know exist or ones that are likley to exist?

Regardless, the odds are quite strong that this is actually the jesus tomb already.And even if further statistical adjustments bring the 600-1 ration down much lower (big *IF*), then I would bet that the odds will still be several dozen to 1 in favor of this still being Jesus.I would still call that presumptive "best-case scenario" (from my conservative Christian perspective which possibly borders on fundamentalism at times)reasonably strong evidence of this tomb actually being one that holds Jesus.

Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 3:31 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 6:25 AM Nimrod has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16338
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 186 of 242 (388466)
03-06-2007 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Nimrod
03-06-2007 5:36 AM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Nimrod, posted 03-06-2007 5:36 AM Nimrod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Nimrod, posted 03-06-2007 7:13 AM PaulK has responded

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 3472 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 187 of 242 (388473)
03-06-2007 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by PaulK
03-06-2007 6:25 AM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.

And the odds are 600:1 not 600,000:1.

Did I say 600,000 to 1 in the Jerusalem Tomb context?

Perhaps.

But, what I meant was that the name match clusters would only happen about 1 out of 600,000 times , and with 1000 "in-existence" 1st century Jerusalem tombs with enough inscribed ossuaries, then there is a 1 in 600 match ratio right now.

I really want to hold off on saying this (since I havnt had time to research this, I actually am quite busy now despite being on the computer)but I seem to remember the odds actually being divided by 4 already to account for possible errors (a statistical method) so the 1 in 600,000 may have actually been 1 in 2,400,000.

I havnt studied this much.

But so far, I cant really see how this cant be very very strongly considered as Jesus's tomb.

Nothing would delight me more than there being all sorts of holes punched into this conclusion.But,it seems to me that the only really problematic issue right now (for the conslusion that this is Jesus's tomb) is the situation of people having trouble swallowing what seems like clear-albeit shocking-evidence.The DNA evidence of James also seems to have people in a state of shock and inability to believe their own eyes.

I have figured that the only way reasonable Christians may be able to save their religion is to find a way to justify that the Jesus in this tomb was a brother of Jesus though with the same name.But that may not exactly be "reasonable" though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 6:25 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 7:44 AM Nimrod has responded
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 7:46 AM Nimrod has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16338
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 188 of 242 (388479)
03-06-2007 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Nimrod
03-06-2007 7:13 AM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
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:

Nothing would delight me more than there being all sorts of holes punched into this conclusion.But,it seems to me that the only really problematic issue right now (for the conslusion that this is Jesus's tomb) is the situation of people having trouble swallowing what seems like clear-albeit shocking-evidence.The DNA evidence of James also seems to have people in a state of shock and inability to believe their own eyes.

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 ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Nimrod, posted 03-06-2007 7:13 AM Nimrod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Nimrod, posted 03-06-2007 8:10 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16338
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 189 of 242 (388480)
03-06-2007 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Nimrod
03-06-2007 7:13 AM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
Duplicate

Edited by PaulK, : Duplicate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Nimrod, posted 03-06-2007 7:13 AM Nimrod has not yet responded

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 3472 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 190 of 242 (388484)
03-06-2007 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by PaulK
03-06-2007 7:44 AM


Ill need to wait till I can research this further
For now.

The DNA "matching" issue is the James Ossuary matching the Jesus Ossuary.It was a perfect match.From what I saw.I look forward to the scrutiny and the rest of the details.

The 600,000:1 are the odds of all 5 names matching. (thats before James is factored in)

Then they are divided by the number of Jerusalem tombs (named tombs).

That is where the 600:1 conclusion is reached.

Again, more needs to be known.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 7:44 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 8:38 AM Nimrod has not yet responded
 Message 192 by Brian, posted 03-06-2007 9:20 AM Nimrod has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16338
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 191 of 242 (388496)
03-06-2007 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Nimrod
03-06-2007 8:10 AM


Re: Ill need to wait till I can research this further
quote:

The DNA "matching" issue is the James Ossuary matching the Jesus Ossuary.It was a perfect match.From what I saw.I look forward to the scrutiny and the rest of the details.

I've never heard of any DNA evidence from the James ossuary.

{ADDED} I think I've got it. You're thinking of the patina evidence. But the patina has nothing to do with DNA - it's a crust which forms on the stoen as it's stored. 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.

quote:

before James is factored in)

Then they are divided by the number of Jerusalem tombs (named tombs).

That is where the 600:1 conclusion is reached.



Not according to the Open Letter which states that the probability is based on getting at least as good a match by randomly selecting names, based on the inscriptions foundd on ossuaries (i.e. that lsit of names is used as the "pool" that names are randomly drawn from).

So there's no 600,000:1 probability.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Nimrod, posted 03-06-2007 8:10 AM Nimrod has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 10:18 AM PaulK has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3516 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 192 of 242 (388501)
03-06-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Nimrod
03-06-2007 8:10 AM


Re: Ill need to wait till I can research this further
What are the odds on the Romans allowing a crucified common criminal to be interred in a family tomb?

Do you have any evidence of the Romans allowing common criminals to be interred in a family tomb?

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Nimrod, posted 03-06-2007 8:10 AM Nimrod has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 10:10 AM Brian has responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4509 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 responded

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

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4509 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 responded

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

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3516 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 195 of 242 (388543)
03-06-2007 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by anastasia
03-06-2007 10:10 AM


Re: Ill need to wait till I can research this further
Do you have any evidence that there was a crucifixion?

Of course, reams of evidence in fact.

Also, lots of evidence that executed common criminals were thrown into a common grave.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 10:10 AM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 1:35 PM Brian has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020