Jesus Tomb

[Jack]

Look at all of the homosexual atheists populating the top ten serial killers list.

Okaydokey.

Serial killers tend to be white, heterosexual males in their twenties and thirties who are sexually dysfunctional and have low self-esteem. Their methodical rampages are almost always sexual in nature.

Internet Crime Archives

10. Servant Girl Annihilator – 1884 to 1885 – Austin Texas-straight 9. Killer Cop - late 60s to 1973 - Broward County Florida-straight 8. Axeman of New Orleans – 1918 to 1919 – New Orleans-straight 7. Son of Sam – 1976 to 1977 – New York City-straight 6. Werewolf of Wysteria ? to 1934 - various locals and New York City-straight 5. Bloody Benders – 1872 to 1873 – Labette County Kansas-straight 4. Killer Clown – 1972 to 1978 – Chicago Illinois-gay 3. Night Stalker – 1984 and 1985 – Los Angeles and San Francisco-straight 2. Zodiac Killer – 1968 to 1970 - California-straight 1. The Devil in The White City – 1887 to 1895 – Chicago and various locales-not sure

YesButNoButYes: 10 Notorious Serial Killers

Not sure how many were atheists, but I can tell you that nine out of ten are white males. Perhaps that's more relevant than their philosophical leanings.

[Jack]

Your only choices are:

False dichotomy. There are more than two possibilities, and you don't mention the one I conclude is the most likely. You fail to mention the possibility that none of it ever happened. Since there's no way to accurately determine the exact authorship of much of anything in the Bible, its veracity is totally dependent on faith.

[loser]

Quote: Serial killers tend to be white, heterosexual males in their twenties and thirties who are sexually dysfunctional and have low self-esteem. Their methodical rampages are almost always sexual in nature. Internet Crime Archives Quote: 10. Servant Girl Annihilator – 1884 to 1885 – Austin Texas-straight 9. Killer Cop - late 60s to 1973 - Broward County Florida-straight 8. Axeman of New Orleans – 1918 to 1919 – New Orleans-straight 7. Son of Sam – 1976 to 1977 – New York City-straight 6. Werewolf of Wysteria ? to 1934 - various locals and New York City-straight 5. Bloody Benders – 1872 to 1873 – Labette County Kansas-straight 4. Killer Clown – 1972 to 1978 – Chicago Illinois-gay 3. Night Stalker – 1984 and 1985 – Los Angeles and San Francisco-straight 2. Zodiac Killer – 1968 to 1970 - California-straight 1. The Devil in The White City – 1887 to 1895 – Chicago and various locales-not sure YesButNoButYes: 10 Notorious Serial Killers Not sure how many were atheists, but I can tell you that nine out of ten are white males. Perhaps that's more relevant than their philosophical leanings.

Violence and Homosexuality

Although the total number of victims dispatched by a given killer is often in doubt, (e.g., homosexual Henry Lucas claimed that he killed 350), it appears that the modern world record for serial killing is held by a Russian homosexual, Andrei Chikatilo, who was convicted in 1992 of raping, murdering and eating parts of at least 21 boys, 17 women and 14 girls. The pathology of eating one’s sexual victims also characterized Milwaukee's Jeffrey Dahmer in 1992. He not only killed 17 young men and boys, but cooked and ate their body parts.

The top six U.S. male serial killers were all gay:
• Donald Harvey claimed 37 victims in Kentucky;

• John Wayne Gacy raped and killed 33 boys in Chicago, burying them under his house and in his yard;

• Patrick Kearney accounted for 32, cutting his victims into small pieces after sex and leaving them in trash bags along the Los Angeles freeways;

• Bruce Davis molested and killed 27 young men and boys in Illinois;

• A gay sex-murder-torture ring (Corll-Henley-Brooks) sent 27 Texas men and boys to their grave; and

• Juan Corona was convicted of murdering 25 migrant workers (he "made love" with their corpses).

Lesbian Aileen Wuornos laid claim in 1992 to "worst female killer" with at least 7 middle-aged male victims. She singlehandedly topped the lesbian nurse team of Catherine Wood and Gwen Graham, who had killed 6 convalescent patients in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The association between serial murder and homosexuality isn’t recent. Two gays compete for the spot of "world’s worst murderer." During the Nazi reign of terror, Auschwitz executioner Ludwig Tiene strangled, crushed, and gnawed boys and young men to death while he raped them. Though his grand total is uncertain, he often murdered as many as 100 a day. Gilles de Rais (Bluebeard) brutally destroyed the lives of 800 boys. Each lad was lured to his home, bathed and fed. Just as the poor boy thought "this is my lucky day," he was raped, then killed by being ripped or cut apart and either burned or eaten.

A study of 518 sexually-tinged mass murders in the U.S. from 1966 to 1983 determined that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality and that 19 (44%) of the 43 murderers were bisexuals or homosexuals.(2)

The point is: I don't think that any of these people claimed to be Christians.

So, let's not link murder with Christianity...it's just not right.

Furthermore, don't even link the RCC with Christianity...that's like judging America by George Dubya...that's just plain wrong.

[Jack]

don't even link the RCC with Christianity

You don't have to, but from the outside it's pretty obvious that if it hadn't been for the Catholic church there might not be any Christianity today. That's not to say I consider that a good thing. But the fact is that Christianity only survived in the form of Roman Catholicism for hundreds of years. There isn't any practical or grammatical reason to exclude the RCC from the Christian pantheon.

[arielmessenger]

Quote by: phoenix_fire You seem to have a lot of these "alternate translations" lying around.

in the Talmud, the accounts of Yeishu ben Pantera, his Jewish mom, Miriam ben Stada, and Roman mercenary dad, Joseph ben Pantera, the original elements found revised in the latter Gospel stories of Jesus Christ.

[phoenix_fire]

A.) Consider the source.
B.) Please cite the source. Like specific reference. I hate it when people don't do that. I forces me to do a ridiculous amount of digging that I may or may not feel like doing.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name One more point in this: The disciples aren't claiming they BELIEVE Christ was God. They stated quite clearly that they witnessed, with their own two eyes, manifest PROOF that Christ rose from the dead to live again. They also claim to have witnessed numerous miracles with their own eyes. So we aren't talking about suppositions or best guesses here. Your only choices are: 1) They were lying through their teeth and chose to die for those lies, OR 2) They were telling the truth and were willing to die for that.

The "gospels" were written many decades after the alleged death of Jesus by anonymous authors who never claimed in their works to know Jesus (such claims were made for them centuries later). These texts, of which there were many, were heavily edited and revised in the second century by Irenaeus who ultimately limited the texts to four. The remaining accounts, deemed heretical, were burned.

So it is reasonable to add a third alternative to the two you listed above. The accounts were unreliable if not wholly fictitious.

[RickSp]

Quote by: loser Furthermore, don't even link the RCC with Christianity...that's like judging America by George Dubya...that's just plain wrong.

I always love it when some Christians claim that the largest Christian organization in the world is not Christian. What is the Catholic Church if not Christian?

[rez]

Quote by: RickSp I always love it when some Christians claim that the largest Christian organization in the world is not Christian. What is the Catholic Church if not Christian?

Maybe he does not like how the pope has separate magesterium. Maybe Loser likes to read his Bible verbatim.

Jesus was not a prophet for the gentile but for the Jew!

[phoenix_fire]

I think what he means to say is that Catholicism can in no way be said to speak for the rest of Christianity. It's kinda like Gnosticism...to perhaps a lesser degree. A good many Protestants don't even know who the pope is.

[ZNFYRH]

How could someone not know of Pope Palpatine / Darth Benedictus?

[RickSp]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I think what he means to say is that Catholicism can in no way be said to speak for the rest of Christianity. It's kinda like Gnosticism...to perhaps a lesser degree. A good many Protestants don't even know who the pope is.

That is not what he said. He said "don't even link the RCC with Christianity". Given that there are over a billion Catholics around the world, dismissing them out of hand is pretty silly. Also as are something like 20,000 competing Protestant sects around the world, it might be better phrased that "Protestantism can in no way be said to speak for the rest of Christianity".

[Zhavric]

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

Can you name me any evidence that proves the disicples actually existed?

The problem with this particular argument is the people who allegeldly hung out with Christ who saw his miracles and willingly died for what they believed him are every bit as fictional as their mythical teacher. Unsupported claims cannot support other claims and tales of self-sacrifice are meaningless if they're not backed up by valid evidence. Sir Gallahad and Lancelot would have died for King Arthur. Does that make King Arthur real?

Some food for thought:

"Would the disciples have suffered and died for a fabricated saviour?"

One of the reeds of straw holding up the shabby edifice of Christendom is the alleged suffering and cruel fate of his original apostles, the 12 disciples chosen by the Lord himself. By their heroic, cheek-turning sacrifice, these worthies earned their martyr's crown and joined their Lord in Heaven. In so-doing, they inspired generations of noble Christians, who ultimately taught the blood-thirsty Romans the Christian values of compassion and brotherly love. Well, that's the myth.

Though cruelty and human suffering have ever been integral to the history of the Church the fanatics of Christ have rarely been the victimized innocents. Rather it has been the Christians who have bathed their faith in the blood of others.

There is NO corroborating evidence for the existence of the 12 Apostles and absolutely NO evidence for the colourful variety of martyrs' deaths they supposedly experienced. The Bible itself actually mentions the death of only two apostles, a James who was put to death by Herod Agrippa (see James for a discussion of this tricky character) and the nasty Judas Iscariot (see below), who gets several deaths because he's the bad guy.

Legend and tradition alone, dreamed up by the early churches in their bid for legitimacy and authority, provided the uplifting fables of heroics and martyrdom. The plethora of conflicting claims and alternative deaths stand eloquent testimony to wholesale fabrication of the non-existent godman's non-existent companions.

One of the examples they give:

1. Peter (aka Simon, Cephas)).
"Beheaded by Nero?" No, not really. This legend was dreamed up by the mid-2nd century pope Anicetus (156-166) when he became locked in a conflict with the venerable Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp had tried to win the argument (over the dating of Easter) by insisting that he spoke with the authority of the apostle John. In response, Anicetus staked a claim to Peter, and Peter, "Prince of the Apostles", trumps John.

2nd century texts known as the "Clementines" had made Peter the "first Bishop of Rome" and 3rd century invention gave him a 25-year pontificate – which made it a tad tricky for him to have died at the hands of Nero but, hey, this is "tradition."

3rd century Church Father Origen dreamed up a colourful flourish: Peter, feeling himself unworthy to be crucified the same way as his Lord, chose option 'B' – crucifixion upside down!

The 12 Apostles – Fabricated followers of a fabricated Saviour – Ken Humphreys

[ZNFYRH]

For your reference, RickSp...
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications.../print/xx.html

Religions: Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%), Muslims 20.12%, Hindus 13.34%, Buddhists 5.89%, Sikhs 0.39%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 12.61%, non-religious 12.03%, atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)

The simplest way to illustrate your point is just to state, correctly, that all Catholics are Christians, by definition.

Concerning the initial question of the thread, the responses in the last 2 or 3 posts, and other threads on the forum, I think the concern is that at some point Zhavric stated that there was never a person in history who could be associated with the Biblical Jesus.

Thus the initial question reasons to ask whether Cameron is wrong, this is not the Jesus, or Zhavric is wrong and Cameron found him.

If Cameron's documentary is accurate, and the caskets are dated at approximately 2,000 years, and the DNA in the Jesus casket and the DNA in the Mary casket are found to be the parents, then it would provide evidence showing Zhavric is wrong.

But if Cameron is wrong and the DNA tests are not conclusive, that doesn't automatically make Zhavric right.

I can understand where Zhavric is coming from. The majority of the Bible was written and not recorded... if you can understand the distinction. But we really have no way of knowing if the Bible is nothing more than historical fiction. It's entirely, and feasibly, possible that those people did exist and did do the things Jesus did, and the supernatural aspects are only there to amplify the concept of divinity.

Believing for yourself that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence is one thing... trying to convince others that your reason is irrefutable is another.

[namguy69]

Quote by: Eclipse Canadian claims to have found Jesus' lost tomb : Top Stories : News : Sympatico / MSN .........Well, there you have it...maybe. Share your thoughts.

I don't believe they found Christs tomb, a hoax.

[RickSp]

Quote by: ZNFYRH If Cameron's documentary is accurate, and the caskets are dated at approximately 2,000 years, and the DNA in the Jesus casket and the DNA in the Mary casket are found to be the parents, then it would provide evidence showing Zhavric is wrong. But if Cameron is wrong and the DNA tests are not conclusive, that doesn't automatically make Zhavric right. I can understand where Zhavric is coming from. The majority of the Bible was written and not recorded... if you can understand the distinction. But we really have no way of knowing if the Bible is nothing more than historical fiction. It's entirely, and feasibly, possible that those people did exist and did do the things Jesus did, and the supernatural aspects are only there to amplify the concept of divinity. Believing for yourself that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence is one thing... trying to convince others that your reason is irrefutable is another.

If DNA testing establishes a familial relationship, it is still a considerable stretch to "prove" that the remains were of the historical "Jesus". The names involved were very common during the period. It is unclear to me how anyone would be able to prove to an appropriately scientific standard that the remains are as Cameron has claimed.

What I find most compelling about the argument that the historical Jesus was an amalgam of various messianic rabbis of the period rather than a single historical figure, is the complete absence of a record of his existence during his lifetime. The Romans and the Jews were each remarkable and diligent record keepers. The lack of any recorded notation of "Jesus " during his lifetime is telling.

[ZNFYRH]

Long ago, RickSp, I asked a question similar to what you address. I asked if the Romans would have documented any kind of trial, administration of punishment, and/or release of one prisoner in exchange for another. I was answered that they most definitely would have. Then I asked another question and received another answer, but on the condition that I would free myself of skepticism and just listen to the answer for what it is.

I will request the same here. Instead of just dismissing the answer as making excuses, I would rather enjoy an intelligent discussion about the feasibility of the answer, much as I enjoyed intelligent discussion about this answer years ago.

I asked why there would be no record of what happened on the day Jesus was crucified.

The answer I received is from a now 60 year old priest who is probably the only religious authority figure who I respect. He's a scotch aficionado and also has a degree in History. His answer was...

It is entirely possible that, at the time, Jerusalem was plagued with a great deal of unrest. The Roman government was in contention with existing local royalty. Their authority was based on military might, but as with all military occupations, a united populace standing together can easily oust the bureaucracy and repel future attacks. If the history of that day is true, beyond just what is in the Bible but what is in addition writings (not all Christian doctrine comes from the Bible... the Bible is just the main reference) then what Rome was faced with was the possibility of a revolution over one man. Not only would one man be killed for the sake of preventing a serious revolt, but the governor would not document such a matter because, on paper, it would appear to be illogical.

On the Jewish side the answer is even more simple. The "lower" Jews that loved Jesus weren't the historians, and they were the only ones to whom Jesus ministered. Those who could have documented anything where the "higher" Jews, and they thought Jesus was a joke. The rarity of is appearances and the laughable accounts of his miracles (usually related by a "lower" Jew) were quickly ignored.

The resulting discussion (over a bottle of 12-year-old Scotch) was very interesting as we discussed not just religion, but politics and sociology in that time period.

[RickSp]

The lack of any record of the existence of a historical Jesus during his lifetime, not just his crucifixion but any aspect of his life, does not "prove" that no such man existed. It does raise questions, nevertheless.

Even the gospels don't agree on when he was born. Matthew put it during Herod's reign which includes the slaughter of all young male children in the village of Bethlehem, an event which also escaped contemporary documentation or reference. Herod died in 4BC. Luke puts the birth at 6AD based on his reference to a census. So even the Christian texts can't place the birth to within a decade.

All the events of Jesus' life from birth to crucifixion are recorded by none of the writers of the period. The closest we get are comments by Josephus, likely to have been altered by later Christians, written decades after the death of the historical character.

History's Troubling Silence About Jesus

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: RickSp The lack of any record of the existence of a historical Jesus during his lifetime, not just his crucifixion but any aspect of his life, does not "prove" that no such man existed. It does raise questions, nevertheless.

I completely agree. I, myself, was skeptical for that very reason. I wondered how such a major figure could have gone undocumented. And the priest to whom I was speaking stated that I asked a very significant and intelligent question that he wishes he could answer.

As I repeated above from the answer I received, the people who witnessed his miracles could not read or write, and those that could generally looked down on those who spoke the stories to them. It's an accurate historical answer to the question of why he went undocumented.

[RickSp]

Quote by: ZNFYRH As I repeated above from the answer I received, the people who witnessed his miracles could not read or write, and those that could generally looked down on those who spoke the stories to them.

We are in agreement up to this point. Both the Jews and the Romans valued literacy. The Jews were the "people of the Book." Certainly not all could read or write but they would tend to have a far higher rate of literacy than the ancient world overall.

If when Jesus was crucified there was indeed a three hour eclipse and an earthquake that split the temple vail in two, not mention the opening of the graves and the wandering saints, you would think that someone might have jotted it down. Accounts from the period have survived but they don't mention anything about Jesus.