|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science proves that the tomb of Jesus (Christ ?)and James the Just have been found. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member (Idle past 61 days) Posts: 7051 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
So actually you have no evidence?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1725 Joined: |
Here we see that the late Marcus Borg accepts the visions as something that are historical.
quote: quote: Then James Tabor (the fundamentalist turned liberal Christian)who Pat questions the motives of) https://jamestabor.com/...n-view-of-resurrection-of-the-dead https://jamestabor.com/...nd-why-it-makes-all-the-difference
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1725 Joined: |
This is from part of Tabor's "There’s Something About Mary . . . Magdalene (Part 2)" article from a year ago (there were 4 parts under the same title, and this was part of his second Jan 10 2016 article). I find it to be interesting to say the least. He has endnotes referencing the academic sources. Understand that this is a fairly recent discovery on Tabor's part. He just never quits and his indefatigable efforts keep on bearing fruit and adding to the total sum of human knowledge. I have trouble deciding what of his online works to paste here. I want to keep the pastes to a minimum. I often wonder if new areas of science have been created in order to test this provocative Tomb theory in a falsifiable fashion.
This is not a scientific angle here (either through older DNA, Patina, etc. or newer issues like chemical composition of narrow Jerusalem soil areas), but the whole database search issue was really enlightening for me to read. quote: On another issue, I think this link, below, might supplement the double burial issues (and be relevant for the resurrection). I meant to include it at the end of the last post. The resurrection issues are important to get straight, because many will otherwise think that this type of research somehow is an attack on the Christian faith. Not only is it NOT anything of the sort, but actually Tabor's research (and specifically as it relates to the Tomb) seems to back up "Christianity" as it originally was. https://jamestabor.com/...-easter-morning-the-mystery-solved James Tabor has to be the most important scholar in the field of early Christianity IMO.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member (Idle past 61 days) Posts: 7051 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined:
|
Amazing though that nothing Tabor asserts has much evidence. He is a crank. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1539 Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1725 Joined: |
The link isn't working. Was the criticism about Talpiot alone or other academic works?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1725 Joined: |
1) That Paul not only knew of the virgin birth, but invented it (most scholars say he did not know of it)
https://jamestabor.com/did-paul-invent-the-virgin-birth/ 2) That parts of the Gospel of Peter (which I incorrectly said earlier had the Christological view of Islam in it, actually I think it was the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter but I'm not sure and that isn't the issue here) date to the 50s CE. https://jamestabor.com/...ending-of-the-lost-gospel-of-peter Here is a relevant quote by a (outstanding)conservative evangelical scholar on the issue. quote: Here is Tabor responding to a good question, from a late friend and fellow scholar, on the issue of how Jesus could have only resurrected spiritually yet the Gospels say his body rose. https://jamestabor.com/...-and-developed-a-newold-hypothesis another link 3) That The Dead Sea Scroll community believed in a resurrection. (which he was something of a trailblazer on since he published the very text in 1992 that started to turn the tide) (he and Marty Abbeg were attacked for publishing it FIRST in a popular publication then a journal slightly later in 1992) link escapes me. 4) That Jesus thought himself the Messiah. (he bases his view on new Dead Sea Scroll Discoveries and 2 leading scholars published trailblazing work at the same time a while back) quote: 5) That Jesus was likely the son of a Panthera (he came at this based on the evidence plus he has done work on the issue like none other) See Mary link in post 48. https://jamestabor.com/...ng-the-original-followers-of-jesus https://jamestabor.com/an-unnamed-father-of-jesus/ https://jamestabor.com/joseph-gone-missing/ https://jamestabor.com/the-jesus-son-of-panthera-traditions/ quote: He has scholars like Richard Bauckham agreeing with parts of his theory. See my Mary link in post 48 too see non-hostile see first century Rabbanical sources that are relevant. Hegesippius is also very important. 6) He recently found the evidence too strong to ignore relative to Jesus being married to Mary. He didn't hold that view when he wrote Jesus Dynasty in 2006
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member Posts: 1799 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
Then stop it. The thread might be more interesting if you wanted to discuss something instead of spamming us with everything Tabor's ever written.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1725 Joined: |
Well, I didn't mention anything but the Talpiot tomb issue (plus bare links that helped people read his reasons for understanding that the early Jesus community didn't have a bodily ressurection). Then I showed evidence that centered around the identification of the Mary tomb with the female that witnesses the risen Jesus according to the Gospels AND THAT did use a Tabor paste. Tbeodoric and Jar said he was a crank who can't back anything up. So I simply let people become aware of some of his disputed stances and offered mostly bare links in an effort to help people understand Tabor's difficulties in the endlessly complex researches he has undertaken. Alot of the things he works on are standalone issues and people think that shooting down one defeats every other issue he takes on. I need people to understand that Tabor and other scholars get their ideas rejected on a case by case basis, and actually the best of them fail to "seal the deal " with their colleagues more often than not WHEN MAKING PROPOSALS. There is a tentative nature to this whole scholarly enterprise and it can get rough when there is usually no hard science available to come to the rescue. Tabor is trying hard though and he will put his theories to any available scientific test. I wonder if the chemical composition test was a brand new spinoff that has no antecedent in scientific history. Regardless of the novelty, Tabor's theory passed the scientific test and infact the Jesus son of Joseph, Brother of James tomb does indeed come from The Talpiot Tomb.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1725 Joined: |
I love this evangelical conservative scholar Stanton. I think the issues that the third century scholar and apologist Origen covers ( in his pre 250 BCE defense against the 2nd century pagan critic Celsus ) are relevant today.
quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 14837 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I recently read a good article, Forget Santa Claus, Virginia. Was there a Jesus Christ? quote: To their credit, the New Atheists oppose religion blending with politics.
Some of these arguments mirror our arguments here at EvC. Their thesis generally includes a number of arguments: It is ironic that an agnostic can defend the Christian position better than believing Christians can! Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 18854 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 3.5 |
You're projecting. YOU wouldn't get bent out of shape if somebody suggested that George Washington mistreated his slaves, would you? You'd want to know the truth, wouldn't you? So why do YOU get bent out of shape if people want to know the truth about Jesus?
What's ironic is that "believing Christians" are the ones who want to throw the message away if the messenger doesn't measure up to their expectations. Suppose your postman was cheating on his wife. Would you tear up the cheque he brings?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 14837 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Of course, if we base the Bride of Christ metaphor on only the church we then circle back into our sheep and goats judgment. Imagine how the Bride(goats) would feel if her husband was cheating on her with *gasp* atheists and Wiccans! Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 18854 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 3.5 |
The question remains: What would you do with the cheque?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1725 Joined: |
I missed this amazingly untrue article from Richard Carrier (it wasn't loading on my friend's computer back when I was in New York)
There are LATE 2nd century (or early third) orthodox Christian's who use the word "Miriamene" when describing early Gnostic texts (from 150 or earlier) that discuss James the Just and a Mary (spelled Miriamene!), plus other texts that actually spell Mary Magdalene as such. Carrier takes issue with the reading in the tomb. quote: Where to begin. 1: First of all the the supposed inscription "kai" is not obvious because that so-called "a" isn't what an "a" looks like in standard written Greek (kai makes up like 10%-12%+ of all Greek words in the New Testament, literally in every sentence, so anybody can check a Greek text and be assured to see the word in just about every sentence. Notice that it is not "kai" if written Greek is the standard. 2: Inscriptional Greek isn't the same thing as written Greek, the letters are written differently (and though there is some debate, the difference is monumental). 3: Let me quote Carrier with his reference to Rahmani "An earlier epigrapher confused a single letter as nu (N) which is actually kappa [K], the one being an upside down version of the other (a common mistake even for an expert to make who might be getting tired trudging through hundreds of inscriptions). This is so glaringly obvious there can be no reasonable dispute in the matter." There wasn't anything like this account by Carrier (though Rahmani DID EVENTUALLY - a fair ways later - changed his mind and concludes that his earlier reading was perhaps wrong). There was a slow progression. Rahmani told James Charlesworth (after the explosive publication of Tabor and Simch's Talpiot Tomb issue) that he stood by his conclusion that it was Miriamenou (roughly means "of Miriamene"), NO DIFFERENT THAN he presented in his book (the book Rahmani made his reading and translation was BEFORE the controversy). Rahmani sent an email to Tabor, responding, "of course I still stand by my reading" (or a quote very much like that). The issue is whether it is an N or a K (plus other inscriptional letter disputes). Here is a scholar who stands with the reading of Miriamene as the basic name (before the genitive inflection alters the spelling a bit) Leah Di Segni Tell me if this individual isn't qualified. Here is Richard Bauckham on the issue. This leading scholar supports the N reading quote: Now Bauckham's words quote: Update quote: This is not some "wingnut" issue to see the actual tomb name as Miriamene. The "K" carrier think is so obvious escaped the leading experts even after much consideration. And even if it is a "K",we still have the fact that the word for AND - "kai" - is not there on the tomb for certain (unless one wants to assume that the "A" is written extremely different in inscriptions when compared to paper/papyrus texts) Carrier misled his readers.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 14837 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
*********************************************** LamarkNewAge, I attempt to read your lengthy cut & pastes in the interest of determining whether or not you have a sound argument. I must say, however, that I don't follow your deductive reasoning as easily as you yourself do, and I suspect that nobody else does either. It is a strange way to learn about things...googling, and letting a search engine bring stuff up. It almost seems like you have a conclusion in mind before you even google--otherwise, how would you know which search terms to put into the engine? Granted I don't particularly like Richard Carrier---I honestly think that some of these learned types have a major axe to grind with Christianity and Jesus Christ, and I dont trust the validity of much of their conclusions. Its hard for me to get a handle on what your personal beliefs are, however. The answer is not found through search engines, in my opinion...but perhaps you can enlighten me on your personal belief and philosophy regarding this overused tool of discovery and where the search ends. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021