Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 8:50 PM
21 online now:
Dr Adequate, DrJones*, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Author Topic:   Jesus Tomb Found
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 211 of 242 (388628)
03-06-2007 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 1:38 PM


Nemesis_juggernaut- Message #200
Thanks for your responce, and I will check out you link, but before I do that, let me respond to some of your comments.I must say that I have been left very confused by a significant amount of what you said.


They employed a statistician from the University of Toronto. What he had done is taken all of the known ossuaries in Jerusalem and juxtaposed them by the five names in alleged Jesus tomb. He discovered that names like Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were very common in that time. I believe the odds were something like anywhere between 1:5 and 1:40 people in Israel had those names. However, the name "Mariamne" was quite unique, even in Aramaic. Then he calculated what the odds were of all of those names being in the same family. The odds then jumped a bit higher. Here is how he did it. I don't think the hyperlink will directly link you to the statistics page. If not, click on "Enter the Tomb." Then go to "supporting evidence," on the lower lefthand corner. Then click on "statistical evidence."

Let me try it this way.Ill respond to you first, then later I will read the link.Maybe that is flawed, but allow me to go this route please.


Here's the problem though. They only mentioned six of the twelve names in the tomb. They neglected to mention or factor in Matia, Judas, Shimon, Miriam, and Salome who were also found at the site in their statistical figures, even though Shimon and Judas (Jude) are in fact listed in the Bible as two out of four brothers of Jesus.

How is that flawed?It sounds like a match between the Bible and the site. That would mean that long and unlikely odds were met.

The issue of 12 names does offer the possibility for contradictions though.Were there any?


Secondly, it has been claimed by a few sources who helped with the expedition that Jacobovici neglected to relay that the tomb carried the bones of about 35 different individuals, and about half were from these ossuaries.

VERY interesting.

So about 16-19 were from these ossusaries?

How many ossuraries were there?

You said there were 12 names.

This is data that can be used for sure.


Thirdly, they had only one dissenting opinion on the actual program, but he and a few of his colleagues assert that Jacobivici is too tempted to think clearly because the translation of the names on the ossuaries may not be accurate.

The program spin doesnt matter much.The data does.


The quaternary example is that the sole discovery of the DNA analysis was that Mariamne and Yeshu were not maternally related. The speculation then becomes that Mariamne and Yeshu must have been married because why would a non-family member be in the same tomb unless they were married. But that does not mean any one was married to another, nor does it mean that if Mariamne was married to anyone it was specifically to Yeshu. It could have meant marital ties to any other male found in the tomb. Therefore, the DNA evidence is literally the weakest link they have. Nor does it mean in any way, shape, or form, that its Jesus or Mary Magdalene inside those ossuaries.

And how does that weaken the case?

From what I see, the names match. The case is quite strong that this is the Jesus tomb. What leads ou to figure this to be a contradiction with the Bible? Quite the contrary.


There is no substitute for the fact that the controversy surrounding Jesus' resurrection was a top priority of that day. Everyone wanted to know where Jesus' body was. That would have come to light immediately if they not only knew where his body was in the temporary burial site, but even more so after the fact when they placed his bones in the ossuary. Aside from which, archaeologists have been scouring Israel for centuries trying to find his body or his family members. This particular tomb was discovered in 1980. This isn't a recent discovery. Rabbi's even installed a tube in the ossuary, which is now custom, on every ancient ossuary site. There is no one with greater vested interests in demolishing the resurrection story than strict adherents to Judaism who view Jesus as a false messiah-- and yet, they didn't.

Do you have any evidence that people believed in the ressurection before the Temple destruction in 70AD?

I know you and I would like to believe that, but is there significant amount mainstream scholarship and extant historical documentation to prove such? Or any at all?

It very possible-based on historical documentation-(though my faith will fill in the gap between c30AD and 70AD) that people didnt believe in the ressurection till after 70AD.The destruction of Temple records and chaos may not have allowed people to know where tombs were buried when the ressurection "myth" was "invented".

Im not saying I believe that, but it is a historical possibility.

We need to keep our minds on several alternate routes when there are various historical possibilities based on scanty historical fragments.

Archaeologists havnt exactly been falling all over themselves looking for Jesus in a common tomb actually,despite what you have said.(common in the sense that it is like most tombs with many ossuaries, though the "common" people of that day couldnt afford it)Infact their attitude has been that the name was common, and it wouldnt be worthwile to look in such a place.Ditto for his family members.


Discovery came out with a program about a year ago when the gospel of Judas was found in Egypt and the Da Vinci Code was a hot topic. They alleged that Mary Magdalene and her son, borne of Jesus, fled to France and started their own line. How, then, can Mary and the alleged son of Jesus, Judas, be buried in an ossuary in Jerusalem? Did they recant their previous sentiment? Did they retract their previous claims? No. They simply didn't mention it. So was Mary in France or in Israel?

The Discovery Channel has an official platform that says that they accept the historical details of a fictional 4th century manuscript when it refers to events from the turn of the first century AD? Do they also have a platform that accepts 4th century fictional writings that covers the late BCE period?

They took Dan Browns own admitted fictional work and decided to believe it?

You conclude that based on a single program they ran?

I didnt even know the Discovery Channel was the issue here.But, if an occasional program makes their "Statement Of Faith" , then they are much more conservative on biblical issues than 99% of mainstream academics. I have a VHS set fo their documentary Pharoahs and Kings by David Rohl.It actually supports the historical reliability Exodus and Conquest event.

The odd thing is that I always assumed this, as well as other programs, didnt reflect their beliefs.

But if you insist on using an isolated program as reflecting their beliefs, then this is further evidence that this "Jesus Tomb" issue is really the tomb of the Jesus from the Bible.Because the Discovery channel is apparantly ultra-conservative with regards to the issue of Biblical reliability.Unknown to me prior to reading post #200 I must admit.


Lastly, the buzz concerning the James ossuary was a compelling piece of evidence for many Christians because it corroborated the account of Jesus. But it was quickly deemed as a forgery by naysayers and it fell into obscurity. But now they are changing their tune. Now they say that the James ossuary was not "entirely" a fraud. They say that only the last part of the inscription is a forgery, but the rest is authentic based on patina evidence that places James' ossuary within the tomb found in Jerusalem. I guess as long as they believe that Jesus is dead, that James' ossuary no longer poses a threat.

The tables have turned indeed but it has to do with fundamentalist Christian conclusions. The entire body of non-Christian posters and especially scholars (aside from Biblical Archaeology Review)have held firm in their conclusions on the James Ossuary.The only exceptions (like Shanks of BAR)have *nothing* to do with this Jesus Tomb issue.


Nemesis
Is it possible that this is Joseph and Mary's family tomb? Sure, that's humanly possible. Is there any actual evidence, aside from speculation and barely even a nugget of circumstantial evidence linking any of the biblical characters to that site? No.

Nimrod
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.

Nemesis
I don't think the challenge substantiates any worry on the part of Christians any more than the Di Vinci Code did.

The Da Vinci code was fictional and has ZERO percent relevance to this Jesus Tomb issue.The Jesus Tomb is a 100% extant archaeological discovery from the first century AD.

Perhaps one can argue that this contemporary Jesus Tomb matching the names of figures around Jesus in the Gospels is due to the late date (compared to Jesus's deat c30AD)of the Gospels giving fictional names, and thus the unlikely name match is just "circumstantial"?

I sure wouldnt make that argument, but its the best I can come up with to match reality with your above statement.


If there is any actual outrage over this amongst Christians, none of which I've seen, then perhaps they need to look at it from your perspective. However, perhaps you are not seeing it from the Christian vantage point. For years, decades, and centuries, people have been preoccupied with trying debunk Jesus in various forms and theories. Why they care so much is anybody's guess. The disconfirming evidence is usually nothing more than a paper tiger, used in a way to rhetorically refute the claims made by their opponents. This new theory is no different. There is a whole lot of fluff about this whole thing and makes it puff up larger than what it really is. They are literally basing it all on a few names to say, oh yes, this is Jesus of Nazareth. The DNA evidence is nil. The statistical evidence is of no consequence, because even supposing it was accurate, 1:600 are odds that good to me. If the lottery were those odds, even I would play, everyday.

Then this tomb has taken that "1" match in 600.The fact is that the 1 in 600 is a conservative estimate.The 1 in 2400 is a moderate estimate. That means that of all the Jerusalem tombs,you wouldnt have a chance of finding these names.You could have 600 more Jerusalems (with the same amount of tombs)and the odds of finding these names would be just 1 IN ALL 600.Thats the conservative estimate.

That would mean that you would need roughly 1000 Jerusalems for 2 matches.That would make the odds likely that there could be another family match this cluster of names, and then that Jesus could be the one who ressurected.


The point is, this is just another attempt to malign Jesus, whether it was Cameron or Jacobivici, who have a flair for the dramatic. So, perhaps your "disgust" is extremely misguided. I'm a Christian and I'm not disgusted by this effort. If anything, it makes me chuckle. I don't let things like this give me a bad hair day. Perhaps you should adopt a similar lifestyle and leave your disgust for things that are truly disgusting.

This is an archaeological discovery,plain and simple.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 1:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4033 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 responded

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

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 213 of 242 (388640)
03-06-2007 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by anastasia
03-06-2007 1:28 PM


Re: Ill need to wait till I can research this further
Where do we have 'part' of the inscription being fake. I would like a
link. As far as I know, the entire inscription was fake, with a patina being added to make it look old (with charcol of the right age added).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 1:28 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 9:38 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 214 of 242 (388645)
03-06-2007 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by PaulK
03-06-2007 2:11 PM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
Please stop inventing "facts". There has been NO change in the position on the James ossuary. The idea that part of the inscription was genuine and part faked goes back right to the time of the fuss about the ossuary.

"Co-investigator Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University said that the antiquities team concluded that the ancient Aramaic script appeared to have possibly been written by more than person. The report says that a forger could have utilized a computer program that scanned ancient letters from known texts, and then etched the words on the side of the limestone box. Experts remain divided over whether the word "Yeshua" (Jesus) was forged, "but the rest for sure is fake," Goren announced. "Yeshua was a very common name. If all you have is the name Jesus, that proves nothing," he added." -American Atheist

Like I said, it immediately met hostility. First they believed that whole text was a forgery. Now they believe it is authentic, save the last word.

The ossuary itself was ALWAYS accepted as genuine

I'm not talking about the physical box. I obviously was talking about the inscription, which is why I said they claimed it was a "forgery."

Few if any of the skeptics of the ossuary were concerned about the ossuary "proving" the existence of Jesus.

Nor could it ever "prove" the existence of Jesus. At best it simply gave more credence to his existence. That's all would have ever been.

Do you actually understand that this sort of fabrication amounts to lying ?

There is no fabrication. The scientific consensus was that it was forged. And now they've changed their tune. What is inconsistent about what I'm saying?


"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 204 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 2:11 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 9:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 216 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 03-06-2007 9:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 221 by PaulK, posted 03-07-2007 2:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 223 by ReverendDG, posted 03-07-2007 4:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4033 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 yet responded

    
alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 2368 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 216 of 242 (388648)
03-06-2007 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 8:50 PM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
Here is a report on the jame ossuary from .bibleinterp.com by Dr. Rochelle I. Altman who is an expert in specialist in ancient phonetic-based writing systems and was a contributor to the The Ioudaios-L Discussion List which was a community of scholars ( still accessible) engaged in on-line discussion of Judaism in the Greco-Roman world

quote:
The inscription has been translated as “Jacob son of Joseph brother of Joshua.”
quote:
The two parts are not related; the differences between them are striking.
quote:
The inscription on the “James” ossuary is anomalous. First, it was written by two different people. Second, the scripts are from two different social strata. Third, the first script is a formal inscriptional cursive with added wedges; the second script is partly a commercial cursive and partly archaic cursive. Fourth, it has been gone over by two different carvers of two different levels of competence.

quote:
Conclusion
If the entire inscription on the ossuary is genuine, then somebody has to explain why there are two hands, two different scripts, two different social strata, two different levels of execution, two different levels of literacy, and two different carvers. They could also explain where the frame has gone.
quote:
The ossuary itself is undoubtedly genuine; the well-executed and formal first part of the inscription is a holographic original by a literate (and wealthy) survivor of Jacob bar Yosef, probably sometime during the Herodian period. The second part of the inscription bears the hallmarks of a fraudulent later addition, probably around the 3rd or 4th centuries, and is questionable to say the least.
All bold mine. go to Official Report on the James Ossuary

It is not

nemesis_juggernaut writes:

Like I said, it immediately met hostility

It is because some of us go with the facts that are presented. Some folks easily fall for snake oil salesmen others do not. There in fact may have been a person named jesus, he may have been like his eras Gandhi. But Gandhi Freed His people and led them. Jesus was tried, convicted and executed like a common criminal.

Edited by alacrity fitzhugh, : No reason given.


six(sic)six
This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 8:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 9:45 PM alacrity fitzhugh has responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4033 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 yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4033 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 responded

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

    
alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 2368 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 219 of 242 (388657)
03-06-2007 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by anastasia
03-06-2007 9:45 PM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
Did they usually crucify people without a conviction
quote:
However, from the standpoint of the Sanhedrin, things didn’t go smoothly here either. The penalty for blasphemy was death, but since the Romans had taken away their authority to impose the death penalty, they had to refer Jesus to the Roman authorities. By policy, the Romans didn’t get involved in religious disputes, so the Sanhedrin had to emphasize the fact that the word ‘Messiah’ refers to a king, which could be construed as sedition against Rome. Pilate tried to get out of judging Jesus on the technicality that Jesus was from Galilee, so he sent Him to Herod the Tetrarch of Galilee, who was in Jerusalem at the time. Unfortunately for Pilate, Herod sent Jesus back. Finally, after Pilate examined Jesus and found that His kingship was no political threat to Rome, he declared Jesus innocent of any crime (Matthew 27:23, Mark 15:14, Luke 23:13-16, John 18:38). In the end, Pilate bowed to pressure and consented to the crucifixion under protest. But Pilate used the crucifixion to taunt the Sanhedrin. It was customary to place a plaque on the cross over the convict, stating the offense. Pilate did not write, “Claimed to be King of the Jews,” instead he wrote, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” (John 19:19-22) In this way, Pilate showed his sympathies were with Jesus, not the Sanhedrin.
Ken Collins web site-Who Crucified Jesus?

By consenting, he convicted even if it was with him protesting against it.'

Edited by alacrity fitzhugh, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 9:45 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 10:44 PM alacrity fitzhugh has responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4033 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 responded

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

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 221 of 242 (388665)
03-07-2007 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 8:50 PM


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

Like I said, it immediately met hostility. First they believed that whole text was a forgery. Now they believe it is authentic, save the last word.


Where "now" is June 20 2003. So that doesn't support your assertion that there has been a change NOW, due to the patina match.

quote:

I'm not talking about the physical box. I obviously was talking about the inscription, which is why I said they claimed it was a "forgery."

According to you your invneted change of mind was...


...based on patina evidence that places James' ossuary within the tomb found in Jerusalem

But the patina can ONLY tell us that the box is genuine, not the inscription (there is "patina" on the inscription but it's faked). And as I have pointed out it does not localise it to a specific tomb and the allegedly "missing" box that did come from that tomb had NO inscription.

quote:

Nor could it ever "prove" the existence of Jesus. At best it simply gave more credence to his existence. That's all would have ever been.

And its something that most skeptics simply didn't care about. So most sketics were NOT motiviated by any such consideration to deny that the James ossuary was genuine despite your insinuations.

quote:

There is no fabrication.

Did you think that if you didn't mention your false assertions, you could get away with pretending that you never said them ?

You claimed that Simcha's claim of matching the patinas of the James ossuary and the Talipot tomb ossuary was causing skeptics to change their minds over the inscription on the James ossuary. And that is a complete fabrication. As you probably know - it hasn't slipped my mind that the one article you produce to support this "change of mind" is well over 3 years old - hardly "now".

You made it up, so you could pretend that skeptics feel "thereatened" by the evidence. Just like you made up the assertion that I deny the existence of a historical Jesus.
At least be honest enough to admit it.


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

    
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 222 of 242 (388668)
03-07-2007 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by anastasia
03-06-2007 10:44 PM


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

because all they cared about was keep the population from rioting maybe?
i figure the priests could rile enough jewish people in the area to make the romans angry enough to kill them and other people around them

pilate may not have found jesus guilty of any crimes but he sure didn't want the priests to destablize the control he had. though from my understanding he really didn't care a whole lot about the jews, but don't doubt he did car about his own neck when rome found out, he refused to kill a person that the locals considered a threat and cost rome a lot of solders and taxes to stop the riots


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 10:44 PM anastasia has not yet responded

    
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 223 of 242 (388670)
03-07-2007 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 8:50 PM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
Like I said, it immediately met hostility. First they believed that whole text was a forgery. Now they believe it is authentic, save the last word.

how is this hostility? don't you know anything about hewbrew culture? no one would add "brother of" to thier name, it would just be yacob ben joph, if you had any clue you would know this, its forgery based on cultural facts

I'm not talking about the physical box. I obviously was talking about the inscription, which is why I said they claimed it was a "forgery."

yes because no one would put brother of anything on an bone box

Nor could it ever "prove" the existence of Jesus. At best it simply gave more credence to his existence. That's all would have ever been.

it wouldn't even do that, as the person you quoted said, jesus is a common name up to the middle of the first century, there could have been a lot of people named jesus, its not a basis for anything

There is no fabrication. The scientific consensus was that it was forged. And now they've changed their tune. What is inconsistent about what I'm saying?

change thier tune? how so? because they found part of it did belong to the person who was stored in the box? so yo consider refining what their conclution makes it invalid somehow?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 8:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3039 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 224 of 242 (388676)
03-07-2007 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by anastasia
03-06-2007 7:39 PM


Re: Ill need to wait till I can research this further
There is the obvious explanation to why Jesus' body might have been handed over still viable, no?

Since there is nothing (that I know of) to support ANY criminal’s body being handed over to the family then I don’t think there is anything ‘obvious’. If this was obvious, is it obvious because there is another example of someone’s body being handed over to their family?

That Pilate found no fault in Jesus, and might have easily given him up for burial?

But, here we go again, uncritically accepting the Gospel account at face value!

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?

Who recorded this event, and how did they happen to come by the information. As far as I am aware none of the disciples were present during this little chat between Jesus and Pilate so we do not have a primary source for this.

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.

Jesus was crucified, but according to the Romans, He wasn't really a criminal.

Let’s be accurate here. As far as historical research goes we can only claim that according to the author of the text the Romans didn’t consider Jesus a criminal! We do not have any writings from any Roman claiming that Jesus was innocent.

Keep in mind as well that crucifixion is a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one, if the Jews executed Jesus He would have been stoned to death. Plus, if the Jews really did want Jesus dead why didn’t they just lynch Him as they did with Stephen?

Personally, I think that the Romans did crucify Jesus, but in order for the Faith to spread the evangelists could hardly blame the Empire for killing the God that they wanted the Romans to follow. 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.
Think about it. If the Jews had hated Jesus and His teachings so much, if they found Him guilty of blasphemy, why on Earth would they have allowed His followers to preach His message in Jewish synagogues?

So, was there any Jewish opposition to the burial, or would the attention be elsewhere since it was Passover/Sabbath?

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 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.

I don’t think there is any good reason to think that Jesus didn’t exist.

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.

What we do is to use the Bible in the same way as any other source, if there is something in a source that has been falsified by external evidence, then that part of the source should be rejected as unhistorical. It doesn’t mean that particular information should be completely forgotten because the insertion of falsehoods and myths tells us a lot about the society that the texts were written in.

It also depends on what is being researched. If you are researching an event from the Bible then fair enough, you have to use the Bible. But surely you need to use additional sources to check for the credibility of the biblical text in question?

You cannot take ANY text as 100% accurate until proven otherwise, this is a ludicrous approach as we would have to consider that every historical text is accurate until proven otherwise. And what about elements of a text that cannot be verified with empirical evidence?

How can we possibly decide if Jesus ascended physically into heaven or not, how do we test for that?

Also, as you say, remember that historians are just telling a story, they are telling us their particular version of events.

How likely is it that people living in Jerusalem at that time would have been ignorant of the Roman customs,

But do we have texts from people living in Jerusalem at the time?

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.

Critical recording of history really didn’t begin until after the Renaissance and ancient historians ALL have horrendous errors in their writings.

Since they looked for and found a tomb back then, they were obviously not preoccupied with Roman custom.

The resurrection myth requires a tomb, it needs to be obvious that Jesus’ body disappeared. If He was thrown into a common grave then it really isnt quite as clear that He rose from the dead. The authors cover many bases in order to try and tie up any possible loopholes in the resurrection myth. They have Roman guards placed at the tomb, to cover the loophole of Jesus followers stealing the body. Funny how the Roman guards who witnessed the resurrection are so quiet about it.

Finally, don’t you find it a little suspicious that we don’t know where Jesus tomb is?

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 7:39 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by anastasia, posted 03-07-2007 10:20 AM Brian has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4033 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 yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019