Jesus Tomb

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Zhavric Really? Dthmstr254 has chosen to question propaganda, call all unsupported claims which contradict proven claims false, and only conclude what can be evidenced with valid sources? Please post to where he's done this. Clearly, I missed it.

well, read my last post about the nearly 15 million dollars worth of evidence which I have seen physically for how the Bible was copied and an actual archaeologist to interview. I question the popular propaganda of atheism and transcendentalism. those are the popular roads of the times.read what I told you. Now I have class to attend to.

[rez]

Quote by: Zhavric Really? Dthmstr254 has chosen to question propaganda, call all unsupported claims which contradict proven claims false, and only conclude what can be evidenced with valid sources? Please post to where he's done this. Clearly, I missed it.

No, but if someone like...I don't know...hmmm, Ariel's Messenger comes around claiming he receives messages from god, Dthmstr would reject those claims. The point is, there is much evidence to back up the bibles claims as their is Ariel messenger's claims, yet dthmstr buys into the claims of Jesus Christ and rejects the claims of Ariel's messenger.

On the other hand, you have people like atheists who reject both of the claims based on the logic you proposed in the quote. What Dthmstr does, is apply his own standard of acceptance to which is real and which is fake.

[Zhavric]

Ah. Yes, I will agree that most Christians have a memetically motivated tendency to selectively apply skepticism. It is remarkable how emotional arguments can hijack the reason & logic of intelligent individuals to the point of rejecting evidence in favor of propaganda.

[rez]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Correction, the mentioned ossuary would not be true. Because it then assumes that Jesus existed, and then you run into the question of why did the Pharisees not point to the grave? Logically, if you are told that a guy whom you partook in the execution of was now alive, you would simply be able to take the person who told you that to the grave and show them the body. Again, this is logically the improbable occurrence. As for the bum vs Jesus, I would accept Jesus based on the archaeological evidence that I have had the opportunity to peruse when Dr Scott Carroll brought around 10 to 15 million dollars worth of archaeological findings about the Bible. With 25000 copies of the New Testament and 34000 copies of the Old Testament with less than a variation per chapter, I accept it as very reliable.

Yeah, I could careless if Jesus existed or not. What I care about is the fact that Jesus claimed god spoke to him just as this person claimed, yet you reject the latter person's claim. Your ability to pick and choose who's supernatural abilities as real and fake are hypocritical and just plain crazy. You apply different standards of acceptance based on your own personal views, which shows how much of a liar you are in all this talk about god.

I would have to say this...I am more of an atheist because of the obvious dishonest behavior that theists portray rather then the lack of evidence of their god. It would be much more enticing to become a theist, if they actually did not lie and manipulate people into believing their doctrine.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Actually, because of the time of the crucifixion and the location, the body would have been buried by Jewish custom. It was against the Jewish law then to leave a rotting body out in the open for the Sabbath day. As I explained in another thread, Joseph of Arimethea was of the Sanhedrin. He was a rich guy. They never bought a tomb if they didn't plan on occupying it someday. The Sanhedrin traditionally got very elaborate tombs. Since Jesus would have been buried in the tomb that Joseph was originally planning on being buried in, the tomb would have been easily located. This is why I believe that the argument by Zhavric is not going to hold water. However, it would not have been a family tomb, as the Sanhedrin were required to be single by tradition.

The romans were not particularly afraid of offending the jews, hence why they made a habit of brutally excecuting them. It was against jewish law to have pagan temples, but the romans weren't too concerned about that either. Remember, jesus was not excecuted as a jew, but as a roman subject, with whom they'd do whatever they wanted. It would seem to be against jewish law to kill someone on the sabbath anyway.

Joseph of Arimathea is an unlikely historical figure anyway, a sanhedrin that actively sympathized with a "rebel", not likely. Granted, faith can easily override all this unlikelyness. but it seems to me unlikely that cameron found everything exactly the way the bible described, except for the most important part. From a simple historical perspective, it seems to me that jesus was probably any one of a number of guys who went around preaching and, who crossed the romans and met an unfortunate end. Then his followers either made up or truly believed the sad ending became a happy one.

[phoenix_fire]

*Yawn*

[Gods_Mercenary]

Yawn!?! i love this ancient Roman Sh**. You could give me a lecture for the rest of my life on this stuff, and I'd be interested.

[RickSp]

If any part of the claims are true this will be the first archeological evidence of any sort of the existence of the historical Jesus. The "James Ossuary" was debunked as an elaborate hoax. Let us see what the scientists make of the new "find" which was "excavated" from a warehouse belonging to the Israel Antiquity Authority outside Jerusalem where it had been stored for the last 25 years.

[Eclipse]

Oh, okay. Sorry. I didn't realize that's what that thread was about.

also techno those names were common back then, they could be all real people, just not who we think of.

Yeah, they were common. The collective of names found in the cluster is not as common when put together and supposedly dates to the same years. There's a chance that's wrong though.

Well. To be honest, I'm going to actually watch it before I make too many comments on its accuracy. I don't think the Christians will accept it if it doesn't fit in with their beliefs, that is those who are trinitarian (and I guess the bulk of the others as well), or maybe they will. I could see why people wouldn't accept it. Hoaxes are not uncommon.

Someone mentioned the second coming of christ in the other thread.
- Yeah, they'll recreate Jesus via his DNA, indoctrinate 'em and use him as a puppet. The thing is you could make several.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary The romans were not particularly afraid of offending the jews, hence why they made a habit of brutally excecuting them. It was against jewish law to have pagan temples, but the romans weren't too concerned about that either. Remember, jesus was not excecuted as a jew, but as a roman subject, with whom they'd do whatever they wanted. It would seem to be against jewish law to kill someone on the sabbath anyway. Joseph of Arimathea is an unlikely historical figure anyway, a sanhedrin that actively sympathized with a "rebel", not likely. Granted, faith can easily override all this unlikelyness. but it seems to me unlikely that cameron found everything exactly the way the bible described, except for the most important part. From a simple historical perspective, it seems to me that jesus was probably any one of a number of guys who went around preaching and, who crossed the romans and met an unfortunate end. Then his followers either made up or truly believed the sad ending became a happy one.

It was also unlikely that the Christians would display the disciples of Jesus, whom they revered above other men, as bumbling buffoons who couldn't make heads from tails. Peter is a classic example of where legend would have corrupted the story. In the most crucial times of Jesus's life, Peter denied Christ 3 times, cursing and deserting him. Thomas, another of the disciples, was displayed as the doubter of the bunch who never believed that Jesus actually arose until a week after the occurrence. If it had been legend when written, the disciples would have been displayed as understanding rabbis, not fishermen with no faith.

Before the whole "happy ending" thing, the Disciples ran and hid, afraid that the Jews would go after them next. In fact, instead of it being Peter, James, or John that first saw Jesus, as would have gone in legend due to the woman's inability to be a witness in a court, it was a gaggle of women, including at least both Mary's. Again, something that would have been there if it had been "made up" is not there.

The Jews headed up the crucifixion, and they had threatened Pontius Pilate's seat as governor. At that point, Pilate would have been hesitant to offend the Jews.

Note that I never said he died during the sabbath. I said he would have been hanging there for the Sabbath day. He was executed for crimes against Jewish tradition, and was not truly a Roman citizen, because of his lineage.

Also, if it was the Roman's he irked, why did the Pharisees never say that it was the Romans who did it, and not them. Again, evidence lacking for the belief that the Romans were involved beyond being a tool.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp If any part of the claims are true this will be the first archeological evidence of any sort of the existence of the historical Jesus. The "James Ossuary" was debunked as an elaborate hoax. Let us see what the scientists make of the new "find" which was "excavated" from a warehouse belonging to the Israel Antiquity Authority outside Jerusalem where it had been stored for the last 25 years.

I bet it is another hoax, based on the "founder's" current track record. Probably a good chance that Mary Magdalene married another Jesus, but not the same one. This because the name isn't all that uncommon. However, since Jesus's family was in Nazereth, wouldn't his ossuary be in Nazereth?

[RickSp]

There is an argument whether the "city of Nazareth" existed in the first century of the common era. No ancient historian mentions Nazareth until the 4th century. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature nor is it included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD).

Nazareth

There is biblical indication that Nazarene was a mistranslation of Nazarite, a person who had taken a vow of holiness and was thus 'separated out' from the masses. Matt. 2:23 says of Yeshua` (Jesus), "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." Not only is there no word translated ‘Nazarene’, as well as no reference to a city of 'Nazareth' in the Hebrew Scriptures, but reference bibles state that the prophecy cited in Matt. 2:23 is in reference to Judges 13:5 concerning Samson's description as a Nazarite.

[Gods_Mercenary]

The Jews headed up the crucifixion, and they had threatened Pontius Pilate's seat as governor. At that point, Pilate would have been hesitant to offend the Jews. Note that I never said he died during the sabbath. I said he would have been hanging there for the Sabbath day. He was executed for crimes against Jewish tradition, and was not truly a Roman citizen, because of his lineage. Also, if it was the Roman's he irked, why did the Pharisees never say that it was the Romans who did it, and not them. Again, evidence lacking for the belief that the Romans were involved beyond being a tool.

Realistically, no jew would have asked the romans to kill another jew, unless far worse repercussions were in order if they weren't killed. Jesus was crucified for crimes against rome, probably because of his entrance into jerusalem as a king, which presented him as a danger. The romans didn't do the pharisees dirty work, roman legionaries don't work for mere provincials who only had power because rome though it convenient for them to.

The Romans as a tool is laughable, pontius pilate was later removed because he was so brutal to all jews. Pilate was the only one with real military power, with the most dominant army the world has ever seen behind him.

How the hell did the sanhedrin threaten pilate's seat as governor? if anything the only threat was the zealots who despised the sanhedrin as allies of the romans.

[Dirty Name]

It seems most are ignoring the central premise of this thread, which is that either James Cameron is wrong, or Zhavric is wrong.

Regardless, let me throw this out for discussion, since I believe it to be one of the most compelling examples of evidence in support of Jesus Christ as depicted in the Holy Bible:

Can you name anyone in history that knowingly and willingly died for a cause they knew to be a lie?

Most Biblical scholars will tell you that 10 of the 12 disciples of Christ were executed for spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ after his death and resurrection (of the two remaining, one was not executed, and one betrayed Christ and then committed suicide).

The Biblical account says that these men saw Christ AFTER he was crucified and had risen from the dead.

If that were NOT true, and they were simply going around telling people a lie, would they really push that lie so far as to be willing to die for something they know is false?

Suicide bombers are willing to die for their beliefs - but I am not aware of any suicide bomber willing to blow himself up for something they KNOW is false.

So that's it. The basic premise is this:

Ten of the twelve disciples claim to have seen Jesus Christ in the flesh AFTER he was crucified, and were willing to stick to that story even unto their deaths.

So, how then, do some people explain this away? I'm curious. You don't have to convince me, you just have to show me how you rationalize this away.

[Gods_Mercenary]

First of all, I'm not denying that jesus rose, that's for another thread, I'm denying that your interpretation of the passion stories is correct.

[arielmessenger]

This is just another hoax in a long long string of them stretching back to the pieces of the True Cross that Constantin's mother found.

Jesus Christ of the Gospels is a literary creation. Good luck trying to find Mary Magdalene when this is a Gospel writer's mistaken translation of the Aramaic words for "Miriam the hairdresser", Yeishu ben Pantera's mom's appellation, Yeishu being the historical "Jesus" who lived a century before his mythical version found in the New Testament Gospels.

If people really wanted to get hold of Yeishu's dna, they should be looking in Lydda, where Yeishu and his five disciples were stoned to death, Yeishu hung on a tree as per Jewish law, and then buried in a cabbage patch somewhere in Lydda.

[Jack]

You don't have to convince me, you just have to show me how you rationalize this away.

OK, let's start with credibility. We have how many sources for the story of this occurring? One. Hardly overwhelming.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Yawn!?! i love this ancient Roman Sh**. You could give me a lecture for the rest of my life on this stuff, and I'd be interested.

Sorry. If it got interesting, I must've missed it. I got mired in the first few posts with the same ol' from everyone. I can only read Zhav assuming everything he believes is historically unassailable so many times before I start staring at my pencil and willing it to levitate.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: arielmessenger This is just another hoax in a long long string of them stretching back to the pieces of the True Cross that Constantin's mother found. Jesus Christ of the Gospels is a literary creation. Good luck trying to find Mary Magdalene when this is a Gospel writer's mistaken translation of the Aramaic words for "Miriam the hairdresser", Yeishu ben Pantera's mom's appellation, Yeishu being the historical "Jesus" who lived a century before his mythical version found in the New Testament Gospels. If people really wanted to get hold of Yeishu's dna, they should be looking in Lydda, where Yeishu and his five disciples were stoned to death, Yeishu hung on a tree as per Jewish law, and then buried in a cabbage patch somewhere in Lydda.

You seem to have a lot of these "alternate translations" lying around.

[Dirty Name]

OK, let's start with credibility. We have how many sources for the story of this occurring? One. Hardly overwhelming.

Who's counting? You? How do you figure there is just a single account?