Jesus Tomb

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: loser This shows your lack of knowledge of the events and the times. Read a little more and the truth will become clearer to you.

Ahh, yes, I'm sure the bible will say something different, unfortunately, it's not a reliable historical source, as most christians will admit.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: loser Ahh, the power of dreams...what might they PORTEND?

You know, when you attack someone's argument, you have to say what is wrong with it, you can't just pull stuff out your ass and throw it on the statement. What part did you object to, that the romans were the most powerful force in the region ( had to be, to rule it) or that Pilate was brutal (brutal enough to get kicked out by the plenty brutal emperor.)

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: 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.

Well, the Romans weren't administrating the trial. The Jewish Sanhedrin (the equivalent of the Supreme court), was administrating the trial. This changes it a lot. The Jewish Sanhedrin would not of kept records for the following reason:

1. They did not want to be found out. This is evidenced by the fact that they arrested him at night. It was against Jewish laws and traditions to hold a trial at night because of what the rabbis added to the law (figuratively, not literally). If you are doing something that is illegal, you won't leave a paper trail.

In answer to your lower Jews thing, the documentation we have is plenty enough, and the copying of that documentation was so exact that in more than 50000 copies of the ancient manuscripts, there is less than one variance per chapter, and not a single one that threatens any major doctrine from the first copy to the 1611 KJV. Each one of them was required to take records for some reason. Matthew was a tax collector, Mark was a scribe, Luke was a historian and doctor. Luke's gospel makes sure that it is a medical impossibility for Jesus to have lived through the cross by mentioning that both water AND blood ran out. This is a common symptom of heart failure. In this is the cause of death. He died not of suffocation, but of heart failure, because by then the blood was starting to congeal, and the heart stopped working when the weight became too much to push.

Yes, Rome was faced with a revolt. The revolt would have come if they had not crucified Jesus.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: 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

Sorry, the translation is not bad. I have seen the copies of the old Testament, one of which dates to the 13th century. Dr Scott Carroll elaborates on it by pointing out that it is a word in which none of the copies hold a variation. It won't work that way.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp 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.

plus the fact that only one of the records is from a guy who has no historical basis for writing. John is the only one that would have had a problem writing.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp 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.

I have one question. How would they show that it is Jesus without a sample of His DNA? What do they plan on doing? "Hey Jesus, come on down here, we need a sample of your blood to test your DNA!!!" :eek:

[RickSp]

LOL. The 13th Century oooohh. Thirteen hundred years after the fact.

No ancient historian mentions Nazareth until the 4th century.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Well, the Romans weren't administrating the trial. The Jewish Sanhedrin (the equivalent of the Supreme court), was administrating the trial. This changes it a lot. The Jewish Sanhedrin would not of kept records for the following reason: 1. They did not want to be found out. This is evidenced by the fact that they arrested him at night. It was against Jewish laws and traditions to hold a trial at night because of what the rabbis added to the law (figuratively, not literally). If you are doing something that is illegal, you won't leave a paper trail. In answer to your lower Jews thing, the documentation we have is plenty enough, and the copying of that documentation was so exact that in more than 50000 copies of the ancient manuscripts, there is less than one variance per chapter, and not a single one that threatens any major doctrine from the first copy to the 1611 KJV. Each one of them was required to take records for some reason. Matthew was a tax collector, Mark was a scribe, Luke was a historian and doctor. Luke's gospel makes sure that it is a medical impossibility for Jesus to have lived through the cross by mentioning that both water AND blood ran out. This is a common symptom of heart failure. In this is the cause of death. He died not of suffocation, but of heart failure, because by then the blood was starting to congeal, and the heart stopped working when the weight became too much to push. Yes, Rome was faced with a revolt. The revolt would have come if they had not crucified Jesus.

Many historians dispute that those gospels were written by the people they were attributed to, they first appear for sure far later, and are made up of a myriad of different stories.

The trial was also probably not attended, or at least judged by jewish people, It was illegal to hold court on a holy day, the proceedings were likely small scale.

The Sanhedrin needed Pilate, only he could sentence someone to death and only his soldiers could carry it out. The Romans certainly suspected a revolt, Jesus had rode in as a king earlier. The Sanhedrin just delivered. Perhaps they sentenced him theologically to appear less the Roman's tools?

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: RickSp 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.

Great point!!

The only reason I never addressed that part of the whole story is because it deals more with the supernatural. But I definitely agree with you that regardless of any accounts of people, someone would have mentioned a severe earthquake, a destroyed temple, or unusual darkness.

And in response to dthmstr, I wasn't talking about the trial by the Jews. I'm talking about when Jesus was presented to Pontius Pilate for judgment.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Many historians dispute that those gospels were written by the people they were attributed to, they first appear for sure far later, and are made up of a myriad of different stories. The trial was also probably not attended, or at least judged by jewish people, It was illegal to hold court on a holy day, the proceedings were likely small scale. The Sanhedrin needed Pilate, only he could sentence someone to death and only his soldiers could carry it out. The Romans certainly suspected a revolt, Jesus had rode in as a king earlier. The Sanhedrin just delivered. Perhaps they sentenced him theologically to appear less the Roman's tools?

Sorry, not true. Dr Scott Carrol has in his possession a copy of the book of Matthew from sometime in the first century. With copies dating back within a few decades of the writings, the first paragraph is easily refuted. The day was not a holy day. It was the night and day before the holy day. Also, you must remember that Jesus would have also been a huge threat to the Sanhedrin. If you were a religious leader then, you would have seen huge chunks of your followers splitting off to follow this man. Jesus was not claiming to only be a healer, he was laying claim to being God himself when he said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." Every Jewish person, scholar or not, recognized that simple phrase as God's name. Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah. True or not, the Sanhedrin would be out of a job if they didn't take care of him. They couldn't get rid of him by evicting him, because then he would go gather more followers, and, as they misunderstood the prophecies, would bring an army back to take Jerusalem. Not a good outlook. If they left him alone, he would very easily had converted most of their following for himself and would take Jerusalem from the inside. again, not a good outlook for them. This left execution as the only possible explanation.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: loser That's not the argument. He didn't revitalize himself...He was revitalized by ANOTHER! Is that possible, in your opinion?

I know this is back several pages, but I wanted to answer this one.

No, one cannot be revitalized from biological death. There is a difference between biological and medical death. Plus they didn't have the technology then to revitalize someone from medical death, and people who receive CPR are likely going to die anyways.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Great point!! The only reason I never addressed that part of the whole story is because it deals more with the supernatural. But I definitely agree with you that regardless of any accounts of people, someone would have mentioned a severe earthquake, a destroyed temple, or unusual darkness. And in response to dthmstr, I wasn't talking about the trial by the Jews. I'm talking about when Jesus was presented to Pontius Pilate for judgment.

Actually, if you check Egyptian history, they mentioned that, around the time that Jesus would have been crucified, there was a huge eclipse. Their records say that "a god must have died on this day." How ironic.

As to the second part, as was said by another earlier in the thread, since the Sanhedrin threatened a revolt, there would be no record due to the chance that he would be deseated for allowing the people to get to that point.

[ZNFYRH]

To dthmstr:

yama7

That is the closest thing I could find to historical references to the events of the resurrection. I don't doubt that there were eclipses during that time period...

Catalog of Solar Eclipses: 0001 to 0100

That's a robust reference that tracks eclipses from -1999 to +3000. The link I provided is narrowed down to the relevant time period.

Perhaps if you could please be specific with your reference to "Egyptian history" your point would be more effective.

In response to your second comment, I was the one who made that statement about the lack of Roman record. I'm confused as to why you would correct me when you misunderstood my comment, and then after I show you your mistake you would respond with my own statement.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: ZNFYRH To dthmstr: yama7 That is the closest thing I could find to historical references to the events of the resurrection. I don't doubt that there were eclipses during that time period... Catalog of Solar Eclipses: 0001 to 0100 That's a robust reference that tracks eclipses from -1999 to +3000. The link I provided is narrowed down to the relevant time period. Perhaps if you could please be specific with your reference to "Egyptian history" your point would be more effective. In response to your second comment, I was the one who made that statement about the lack of Roman record. I'm confused as to why you would correct me when you misunderstood my comment, and then after I show you your mistake you would respond with my own statement.

I am correcting one point. In everything, there is some sort of truth. I was using that part as a proof of my own argument as well. It is the same thing I do when arguing with evolution. The commonality of bone structures is not solely evidence of evolution. It is also evidence of a single designer. A designer always has a theme, and there is a theme to the design of creation. Thus, unless one can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the commonality is not a possible result of design, then it still remains that way.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: dthmstr The commonality of bone structures is not solely evidence of evolution. It is also evidence of a single designer. A designer always has a theme, and there is a theme to the design of creation. Thus, unless one can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the commonality is not a possible result of design, then it still remains that way.

Why you choose to believe that which you believe is, of course, your business. I, however, would never generalize characteristics of personality or motivation to any intelligent being. Just on principle, I would never state that all designers have a theme, all bones have common structure, so therefore they are designed. The logical reasoning in that process is flawed.

[rez]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Why you choose to believe that which you believe is, of course, your business. I, however, would never generalize characteristics of personality or motivation to any intelligent being. Just on principle, I would never state that all designers have a theme, all bones have common structure, so therefore they are designed. The logical reasoning in that process is flawed.

Don't fall into dthmstr's ignorance Z, his inability to reference a specific part in Egyptian history shows that he does not know what he is talking about. The closet thing to your post #81 was the quote I posted below and then dthmstr started talking about evolution.

Quote by: dthmstr254 I am correcting one point. In everything, there is some sort of truth.

-------
Dthmstr, show where you learned about the Egyptian documentation about the eclipse. I am sure the eclipse did not just occur in only Egypt, so how about some other documentation too.

The quote also displays your way of thinking or shall I say lack of thinking. You only process and remember information that corresponds to your religion. Jesus Camp has brainwashed you to the point where you only accept reality constructs according to the bible. Any type of new explanation that contradicts bible passages are simply ignored. You then go and research and try to find things that contain some "truth" that line up with the bible and argue it as the full "truth".

Considering the fact that you simply ignore the scientific explanations that conflict with your bible and accept the explanations that don't, I would have to logically conclude that you are a hypocrite. If you actually had faith and courage about your religion you would live a life without science.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Dirty Name Nice try... but there are some key differences between Koresh and Christ's disciples: 1) None of Koresh's followers chose to die, as far as we know. They chose to remain in the house, and likely had no idea they were going to be burned to death. 2) None of Koresh's followers claimed to have definitive proof that Koresh was God. Christ's disciples were claiming quite literally that they witnessed incontrovertible proof that Jesus Christ was, in fact, God - because they saw him die with their own eyes, and they saw him alive at a later point in time.

You forgot the most important point:

3) David Koresh & his followers existed and are well documented. Neither Jesus nor his followers ever existed as described in the gospels.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: dthmstr254 The commonality of bone structures is not solely evidence of evolution. It is also evidence of a single designer.

No, a designer is what you (or someone else) invented to fit the facts. Evolution is the conclusion we draw from the facts.

I've read through your posts looking for something to rebut, but really there's nothing. You've been woefully unable to present any direct evidence of Jesus or dispell the very obvious fact the gospels were fabricated circa 70 ce and beyond.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Sorry, not true. Dr Scott Carrol has in his possession a copy of the book of Matthew from sometime in the first century. With copies dating back within a few decades of the writings, the first paragraph is easily refuted. The day was not a holy day. It was the night and day before the holy day. Also, you must remember that Jesus would have also been a huge threat to the Sanhedrin. If you were a religious leader then, you would have seen huge chunks of your followers splitting off to follow this man. Jesus was not claiming to only be a healer, he was laying claim to being God himself when he said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." Every Jewish person, scholar or not, recognized that simple phrase as God's name. Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah. True or not, the Sanhedrin would be out of a job if they didn't take care of him. They couldn't get rid of him by evicting him, because then he would go gather more followers, and, as they misunderstood the prophecies, would bring an army back to take Jerusalem. Not a good outlook. If they left him alone, he would very easily had converted most of their following for himself and would take Jerusalem from the inside. again, not a good outlook for them. This left execution as the only possible explanation.

Again, the Sanhedrin did not have the power to execute someone, and rome had no interest in theology. Jesus' army would have been a threat to the romans, first and foremost. The Sanhedrin had little in the way of a military, it would be the romans targeted by an army.

I didn't say all scholars dispute the timing of the Gospels, I said some, not true doesn't apply to my statement.

[Jack]

None of Koresh's followers chose to die, as far as we know.

Based on video shot inside the house during the raid and phone calls with members at the same time, we can say that at least the adults knew if they stayed, they were going to die.

None of Koresh's followers claimed to have definitive proof that Koresh was God.

Of course not, because he wasn't. But then, neither does the average Christian have any definitive proof that the god they worship is real, either. Koresh's followers believed he was divine, just like those who worship Jesus believe he's divine.
All in all, there's as much reason to believe that Koresh is connected to god somehow as there is to believe that Jesus is/was. Which is to say, no reason at all.