Jesus Tomb

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Why would the Romans have had much of a understanding of silly theological terms in the little, insignificant religion they suddenly found themselves rulers of? All of Jerusalem had come out to support Jesus earlier, most of them probably thinking of him as a liberator. The romans didn't care about a record, it was absolutely imperative that pilate crush any rebellion on the spot, for the same reason, job performance. It wouldn't look good if he had to go crying back to rome for more troops. The people were very unlikely to revolt around the sanhedrin, and all subsequent revolts left the sanhedrin out, if not completely destroying them, they were led by men claiming to be the messiah, as Jesus seemed to be. A relatively small mob was little threat to Pilate, he most likely lived in or near the main roman citadel in jerusalem, and he was an experienced commander and had experienced troops, he would have destroyed anything besides a general uprising, something that the sanhedrin had no way of starting, as most jews despised them.

Did they need to know anything about the theology to understand that the Jews were ready to revolt?

The other thing is that Jesus was not mobbing the place. He was treated like a celebrity, yes, but none of his people would have been worth the Romans worrying about. The Pharisees, who supported the Sanhedrin, and the Saducees who also did the same, were far richer and more powerful than Christ ever was in his human life. The Jews had no history of despising the sanhedrin, they all supported the Pharisees and Saducees, who in turn supported the sanhedrin. It wouldn't have been hard for the Sanhedrin to raise the mob with the help of the Pharisees and saducees.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Isherwood It sounds to me like you're asking science to determine the purpose or meaning behind the processes they discover. Science doesn't address motives, meanings or purposes. That would be philosophy. Think of a car wreck. There's a guy there who is taking notes, describing in detail the actual crash. He can determine how fast the cars were going, who braked, who hit who; all the dry, factual evidence that the crash scene reveals. That's science. The investigator isn't concerned with motivations for the wreck, why the people may have been speeding, lost control or in any other way contributed to the crash. Anything other than the material facts of the accident scene don't concern him. Skepticism drives science. It's not appreciated in most religious circles I've ever been involved with.

Again, no answering the how. HOW did it happen? Don't tell me that it was random occurrence. Tell me how the successful piece happened from the emergence of the first cell to the emergence of humanity. Don't answer the what. I know the whats of evolution. I could quote the whats of evolution. What I don't know and want to know are the hows of evolution. HOW did the first cell emerge?

HOW did that cell become a multi cellular organism.
HOW
HOW
HOW
HOW

Answer those questions. Then it will be science. Oh, wait, evolution is philosophy because they never answer the HOWs of evolution. Like philosophy, there are only WHATs in evolution. It is philosophy until it is answering the HOWs of life. Now, go ask those questions and find the exact detailed answers to them or don't come back.

[arielmessenger]

The New Testament Jesus is a literary creation. He is the "Word become flesh".
Mixing the legends of Yeishu ben Pantera and his Sayings with Old Testament prophesies referring to Israel revised to refer to Jesus, New Testament writers beginning with Paul giving the Gospel of vicarious atonement, then his protege Mark writing out the Story with Matthew, Luke fleshing out Mark's story and John coming along later to pull in the Gnostic Christians following Thomas.

But all along Jesus Christ was one "not born of women" as he stated but no one listened.

[Gods_Mercenary]

High priests, including Caiaphas, were both respected and despised by the Jewish population. As the highest religious authority, they were seen as playing a critical role in religious life and the Sanhedrin. At the same time, however, many Jews resented the close relationship that high priest maintained with Roman authorities and suspected them of taking bribes or practicing other forms of corruption

Profiles of Joseph Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate, key figures in the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus.

The high priest and his sanhedrin were indeed despised. They worked with the romans to get their job, a horrible thing for most jews. They were the least likely people to lead a revolt, as they could very well be the first to go if the legionaries left.

It doesn't matter that Jesus wasn't intending to lead a mob, people certainly percieved hima as a ble to do so, that's all that matters.

As to the roman's ignorance of jewish theology, even the bible portrays pilate as not understanding the magnitude of blasphemy.

[Gods_Mercenary]

The form of execution used--crucifixion-- establishes that Jesus was condemned as a violator of Roman, not Jewish, law.

Thank you.

[Jack]

Don't tell me that it was random occurrence.

Why not? If that's the best answer we have at present, why not say so? Perhaps because you don't want to hear it?

go ask those questions and find the exact detailed answers to them or don't come back.

Yup, that must be it. Well, I don't have the answers that you'll accept, obviously. All I can tell you is god didn't-do-it.

BTW-"don't come back"?? Getting rather full of yourself, aren't you? What happened to humble, meek...all that?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Isherwood Why not? If that's the best answer we have at present, why not say so? Perhaps because you don't want to hear it? Yup, that must be it. Well, I don't have the answers that you'll accept, obviously. All I can tell you is god didn't-do-it. BTW-"don't come back"?? Getting rather full of yourself, aren't you? What happened to humble, meek...all that?

It is not the best answer.

your second paragraph shows your own arrogance in automatically discluding the possibility that God exists off the bat. How did the universe come into existence if "God didn't do it"? How did something come from nothing without God? Did matter just magically appear there?

We are to scrutinize everything. I scrutinize the fact that the questions I have asked have no answer other than random occurrence. THat is not an answer to how something happened. It is an answer to the what. When one demands a how, answering with WHAT happened is a red herring and nothing less. Like I said, without an answer to the how, the point of debating this is null and void, because it is only presupposition one (God does not exist) versus presupposition 2 (God does exist). It is an endless circle of debate and it will never end.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Profiles of Joseph Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate, key figures in the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus. The high priest and his sanhedrin were indeed despised. They worked with the romans to get their job, a horrible thing for most jews. They were the least likely people to lead a revolt, as they could very well be the first to go if the legionaries left. It doesn't matter that Jesus wasn't intending to lead a mob, people certainly percieved hima as a ble to do so, that's all that matters. As to the roman's ignorance of jewish theology, even the bible portrays pilate as not understanding the magnitude of blasphemy.

Problem is, his teaching directly contradicted an army being formed. Turn the other cheek isn't exactly a pep talk before a battle. In fact, almost everytime Jesus taught, something in that talk told his followers to love eachother AND their enemies. Secondly, if it were the Sanhedrin in trouble, they would definitely record it, because then they are not breaking the law and it would show that in the record. On the other hand, the lack of record can be explained by the biblical account.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Thank you.

No, it doesn't, it shows that he was executed by Romans, not by Roman law. The Romans did not stone people, they crucified them. This has been historically shown. All executions in Jerusalem were handled by the Romans.

[Jack]

because it is only presupposition one (God does not exist)

The debate persists because theists can't seem to grasp that atheists do not propose that god doesn't exist. It would be redundant for us to say "that which does not exist, uh, does not exist". We do say that theists have not provided a reasonable and credible explanation for their beliefs, and for that reason we can't take their contentions seriously.

So there's only one proposition regarding gods. They exist. If you can prove they do, atheism will disappear. If you cannot, then your proposition is invalid and atheism becomes the default position to take philosophically. I feel the same way when some scientist comes out with some obviously nonsensical "finding" only to later have it all fall apart once their test results are scrutinized. I dislike frauds of any color.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: arielmessenger The New Testament Jesus is a literary creation. He is the "Word become flesh". Mixing the legends of Yeishu ben Pantera and his Sayings with Old Testament prophesies referring to Israel revised to refer to Jesus, New Testament writers beginning with Paul giving the Gospel of vicarious atonement, then his protege Mark writing out the Story with Matthew, Luke fleshing out Mark's story and John coming along later to pull in the Gnostic Christians following Thomas. But all along Jesus Christ was one "not born of women" as he stated but no one listened.

*scratches head* And people wonder why I don't think you're a Christian prophet.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: rez Yes, observation of how nature works. They are only laughable to people who think magic is real. The explanations of the past helped pave the way for new and better explanations. Good explanations make way for new discoveries - this is what dictates which explanation is good which are bad. Supernatural explanations never lead anybody to new discoveries, which is why they are bad. You just don't get it. A good explanation leads to new knowledge and new discoveries. The only explanations that people laugh at are the ones provided by theists.

I suppose I do not get it....one of us does not, at any rate. I won't derail this figuring out whom. But I think you missed the gist of what I was saying. Neither do scientific minds universally take the respectful position you indicate, nor is it relevant. But I'm around scientists all the time. I can assure you. They find this stuff funny. Like the idea of a flat world with dragons at the ends, fixed spheres, the four humours, leeches as a medical treatment for fever (related to previous), the idea that you feel with your heart muscle and think with your stomach, the plum pudding model of the atom, the idea that the earth doesn't move and the sun goes around it...you should get the idea.

The fact that you only see faith as a thing open to ridicule is an indication, not only of your lack of objectivity, but also of some kind of grudge you are acting out. Your ire hinders your impartiality, and that's not scientific.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Problem is, his teaching directly contradicted an army being formed. Turn the other cheek isn't exactly a pep talk before a battle. In fact, almost everytime Jesus taught, something in that talk told his followers to love eachother AND their enemies. Secondly, if it were the Sanhedrin in trouble, they would definitely record it, because then they are not breaking the law and it would show that in the record. On the other hand, the lack of record can be explained by the biblical account.

The Romans didn't care what jesus taught, he was in a position to rile up the populace of jeruslem, he had to be eliminated. The lack of record can also be explained by the decimation of Jerusalem shortly after Jesus and the amazing amount of sackings afterward.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: phoenix_fire The fact that you only see faith as a thing open to ridicule is an indication, not only of your lack of objectivity, but also of some kind of grudge you are acting out. Your ire hinders your impartiality, and that's not scientific.

Oh, get over yourself. Ruling out unsupported claims (that happen to be based on faith) evidences none of the things you've alleged. It's obnoxious to see theists answering honest objections with baseless knee-jerk accusation.

[arielmessenger]

Quote by: phoenix_fire *scratches head* And people wonder why I don't think you're a Christian prophet.

Pauline Christianity is not now nor never has been the only kind of Christian teaching. It won out over the Gnostic Christian sects by using brutality and severe repression of Gnostic texts once the Paulist Christians obtained Rome's blessing.

But our Gnostic texts were forbidden and so it is only reasonable that a Gnostic Christian has no allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church's selection of what constituted the teachings of Christ.

This is the beginning of the New Millennium and things have changed..

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Like the idea of a flat world with dragons at the ends, fixed spheres, the four humours, leeches as a medical treatment for fever (related to previous), the idea that you feel with your heart muscle and think with your stomach, the plum pudding model of the atom, the idea that the earth doesn't move and the sun goes around it...you should get the idea. The fact that you only see faith as a thing open to ridicule is an indication, not only of your lack of objectivity, but also of some kind of grudge you are acting out. Your ire hinders your impartiality, and that's not scientific.

Humorism, or humoralism, was a theory of the makeup and workings of the human body adopted by ancient Greek and Roman physicians and philosophers.


For over 2000 years, leeches were needlessly applied for many ailments as an adjunct to blood letting. Their use in Europe peaked between 1830 and 1850, but subsequent shortages led to a decline in their use. Today there is a real clinical application in that they are of great value to plastic surgeons when venous congestion of skin and muscle flaps is a problem.

LiveScience.com - Maggots and Leeches: Old Medicine is New

People thought that the sun moved around the earth before The Copernican heliocentric system. After Copernicus published his book he was ridiculed by the religious just like Charles Darwin was. Point is, like I said before, old (good) explanations lead to new discoveries and on and on it goes.

And for the plum pudding model:

The model was disproved by the 1909 gold foil experiment, which was interpreted by Ernest Rutherford in 1911 to imply a very small nucleus of the atom containing its full positive charge, thus leading implicitly to the Rutherford model of the atom, and eventually, by 1913, to the solar-system-like (but quantum-limited) Bohr model of the atom.

Plum pudding explanation was bad, and a better explanation was provided. That better explanation lead the path for new and better models. Yet, the plum pudding explanation was not even that bad, it was a basis for other scientists to find out even better explanations.

Quote by: phoenix_fire Many of them seem no different from overt fictions, but given what people knew, they fit.

fit into what? The explanations of nature are always changing and finding new and better answers.

Quote by: phoenix_fire They seem laughable to us now, but with the facts they had then, it was the best explanation they could come up with.

I laugh at people who think the explanations invented by man thousands of years ago are the truth and should not be questioned. They claim these ancient explanations should be taught in present day science classes, which makes them even more laughable.

[Jack]

This is the beginning of the New Millennium

Well, since 1582 anyway, when we switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar. Besides, the years and such are all just human conventions for tracking time.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Zhavric Let's get one thing straight: I am no one's "very own". I'm willing to listen to Cameron's claims, but I'm highly skeptical of them. Atheists hold the gospel Jesus never existed, theists will hold that Jesus was resurrected and both camps will point out that a poor carpenter wouldn't warrant an elaborate tomb. I don't see it as being all that radical a find. Apologists will ask "Were there bones in it?" and have appropriate propagandist answers for a yes or no answer... No will mean they'll stick with their story and yes will mean they'll have to get a little creative. We also know from Josephus there were at least a half-dozen noteworthy Jews with the name "Yeshua" (Jesus) living around 2000 years ago. It could very easily have been one of them as Yeshua was a common name. We'll see what tomorrow's press conference has to say.

I am actually still skeptical and do not believe this is the family tomb of Jesus, but . . .

Even though they are common names, all the appropriate names in one place makes the claims worth considering'

Jesus may have not been just a poor carpenter, because little is known of his family. They were not rich, but not necessarily poor. If it is true that he claimed to be messiah, or a rebel reformer, he had a following that may have provided a tomb for his family.

There still exists a significant gap between the life of Jesus and the sketchy biograghy we have in the gospels.

[loser]

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.

It's true that the RCC's 'lionization' of the lamb of Christianity allowed the true Church to survive in her shadows. Though she tried relentlessly to stamp out the true followers of Jesus, she only fortified their resolve. Like rats or roaches hiding in the dark and dank shadows, they persisted.

The Protestant religions which were born of the Reformation fared no better. They discarded what was good of the RCC and kept what was wrong. The organized religion that is known as Christianity today is NOT the Church that Jesus built and the world is right to despise it. It is the church of the Beast, of Satan himself, the real being that DECEIVES the WHOLE WORLD!

If that doesn't sound like Science Fiction, I don't know what does. Of course, science fiction is nothing more than science fact taken to a higher power.

You may not believe it now but give it enough time and you will.

[loser]

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?

Please see post above. Scripture unequivocally identifies the RCC as the Great Harlot church, Mystery Babylon...deceiving spirits with doctrines of devils.