Jesus Tomb

[Dirty Name]

With the "big news" today that James Cameron discovered Christ's tomb and has definitively proven that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead because DNA evidence confirms he is still dead, we now have ourselves a quandary:

Either Cameron is wrong, or our very own Zhavric is wrong, or, most likely, they both are.

What say you?

The Middle East Blog - TIME

[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.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Not only that, but romans liked to crucify people, the way I see it, there's really no way to find out if it's actually him. Historically, it's likely that Jesus was never buried, and that his bones didn't survive, because he was left to rot on the cross. Even if he was taken to joseph of arimethea's tomb, it doesn't seem likely that he got an elaborate tomb.

[Jack]

Atheists hold the gospel Jesus never existed

While we agree on the existence of gods, we disagree on this. Whether Jesus existed as a person has no impact on my atheistic stance. I do not see any evidence he would have been more than just another man if he did exist, but I also see no reason to presume the man history knows as Jesus was fictitious. Actually, I don't care one way or the other. If tomorrow someone produced a body and could somehow confirm its identity as Jesus, that would only come as a shock to believers. To non-believers, it would be an interesting archaeological find.
Whether Jesus was real or imaginary does not have any impact on the concept of gods. As an article of faith, nothing in the real world has any effect on belief. Belief is beyond logic, beyond proof and beyond credibility. It's a fond hope, and nothing can erase a fond hope from the mind of one who holds fast to it in spite of reason.

[Eclipse]

Canadian claims to have found Jesus' lost tomb : Top Stories : News : Sympatico / MSN

Simcha Jacobovici, from Toronto, is expected to reveal at a news conference in New York on Monday that a tomb he explored under a Jerusalem apartment building once contained the bones of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. Further, he suggested that the tomb, stored in a warehouse belonging to the Israel Antiquity Authority outside Jerusalem, may contain microscopic remains of the Christian saviour's DNA. If so, this would be the first archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus -- and his family.

...

Jacobovici is presenting all of his evidence in his film and book, which focus on six ossuaries discovered in March 1980. They were found in a 2,000-year-old cave that was discovered when workers were excavating land for a housing development south of Jerusalem. The boxes were inscribed with the names: Jesus son of Joseph, Judah son of Jesus, Maria, Mariamne, Joseph and Matthew. Another inscription, written in Aramaic, translates to "Judah Son of Jesus."

...

"There are really only two possibilities," Jacobovici told The Globe and Mail. "Either this cluster of names represents the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. Or some other family, with this very same constellation of names, existed at precisely the same time in history in Jerusalem."

...

"If you took the entire population of Jerusalem at the time and put it in a stadium, and asked everyone named Jesus to stand up, you'd have about 2,700 men," Tabor said. "Then you'd ask only those with a father named Joseph and a mother named Mary to remain standing. And then those with a brother named Yose and a brother named James. Statistically, you end up with one person."

The film will air March 6 on Canada's Vision TV, and later next month on Discovery U.S. and Britain's Channel 4.

Well, there you have it...maybe.

Share your thoughts.

[Technosoul]

he might make a few bucks selling his book. But not in the Christian community.

When and who labeled the boxes after the remains were unearthed?

How in the world would you know his DNA from that of anyone else burried that long ago.

What is the diciple Matthew doing in that cave grave? All those people in the same grave site would suggest they were all killed at the same time and that would not fit the bilbical story and so no point in claiming they are the bones of those witten about.

Anyone could have labelled the boxes with those names as a hoax or as a pratical joke. No way to "match the DNA" with anything else to prove the case, so why mention DNA? For the most part they did not bury people in pine boxes but wrapped them up like a mummy, as they did in Eqypt.

Sounds fishy to me.

[notworthabean]

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

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Isherwood but I also see no reason to presume the man history knows as Jesus was fictitious.

It's not presumption.


jesuspuzzle.com

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bible And Christianity -- The Historical Origins

BibleOrigins

Ancient Jewish Accounts of Jesus

Christian Origins Blog

The Historical Jesus: Table of Contents of on-line class notes (RL 307)

The Mystery of The Testimonium of Josephus

Welcome to Enlightenment! Religion–the Tragedy of Mankind - Articles by Kenneth Humphreys

Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Technosoul he might make a few bucks selling his book. But not in the Christian community. When and who labeled the boxes after the remains were unearthed? How in the world would you know his DNA from that of anyone else burried that long ago. What is the diciple Matthew doing in that cave grave? All those people in the same grave site would suggest they were all killed at the same time and that would not fit the bilbical story and so no point in claiming they are the bones of those witten about. Anyone could have labelled the boxes with those names as a hoax or as a pratical joke. No way to "match the DNA" with anything else to prove the case, so why mention DNA? For the most part they did not bury people in pine boxes but wrapped them up like a mummy, as they did in Eqypt. Sounds fishy to me.

Another thing is that Jesus's family was poor. Jesus's own grave was furnished by a Sanhedrin who was not present at the time that Christ was before the Sanhedrin (which was the Jewish equivalent to the Supreme Court). Though it would be elaborate, the tomb was made for one and marked by the Pharisees and the Temple who placed their guards at his tomb. Assuming that Christ's ressurection was a hoax, the Pharisees would simply have to point to the tomb's location. All this is is a desperate effort to throw a shadow of doubt on Christianity. Asking me, it was a less than pitiful attempt.

The family would not have been buried together and the fact that according to what they released to Fox News (citing this morning's Fox and Friends) the claim is the Mary Magdalene was buried there too. This tells me that they were making the hoax with the help of the non-canon gospel of Judas and/or Thomas. I could get into the debate of their reliability, but that would be off topic here.

En el amor interminable de Cristo,
Billy

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Zhavric It's not presumption. jesuspuzzle.com Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Bible And Christianity -- The Historical Origins BibleOrigins Ancient Jewish Accounts of Jesus Christian Origins Blog The Historical Jesus: Table of Contents of on-line class notes (RL 307) The Mystery of The Testimonium of Josephus Welcome to Enlightenment! Religion–the Tragedy of Mankind - Articles by Kenneth Humphreys Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?

Ok, then explain why your theory that he did not exist does not show up until recent history. Why did the Pharisees not say anything about this Jesus they were accused of killing? Why did Pilate never say anything. You claim he did not exist, yet the documentary evidence, some of which I have seen and felt, exceeds the documentary evidence of Homer's Illiad.

So now that you have posted these, look up Dr Scott Carrol and other actual archaeologists. Check out the opposing evidence instead of going exclusively to the above sites.

In fact, I challenge you to make your case like Lee Strobell tried to. Use evidence from Christian experts in concert with that. If the sites you posted are your only types of sources, you are sadly cutting out Christianity's part of the argument. It is a logical fallacy called stacking the cards. Let's cut the deck now and cut out the above sources. Look at actual documents. Look at the evidence opposing you through the unbiased lens instead of through the atheist and agnostic lenses. You are the detective. You are looking for a missing person. Find Him.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Not only that, but romans liked to crucify people, the way I see it, there's really no way to find out if it's actually him. Historically, it's likely that Jesus was never buried, and that his bones didn't survive, because he was left to rot on the cross. Even if he was taken to joseph of arimethea's tomb, it doesn't seem likely that he got an elaborate tomb.

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.

[ZNFYRH]

Something of note on this topic.
Scholars, clergy slam Jesus documentary - Yahoo! News

[Praxius]

Additional News Articles:

CTV.ca | Canadian claims to have found Jesus' lost tomb

Filmmaker resurrects Jesus tomb debate

CTV.ca | Cameron defends Jesus tomb documentary

I put them here, because the thread title is easier to find and states what it's about.

If this is true, that he had a family afterwards and didn't die on a cross.... doesn't that kind of beg the question "What else is false?"

[Jack]

It's not presumption.

My point was that I disagree all atheists accept that Jesus never existed. A lack of belief in Jesus does not an atheist make. Conversely, an atheist could allow that Jesus might have existed as a human without it causing them to confess a faith in gods. Whether he existed or not as a human being has nothing to do with atheism. It only affects belief in the Christian god.

[sdbest]

Perhaps this is the "Second Coming." It just isn't happening the way Christians had hoped.

Regards
S.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Isherwood My point was that I disagree all atheists accept that Jesus never existed. A lack of belief in Jesus does not an atheist make. Conversely, an atheist could allow that Jesus might have existed as a human without it causing them to confess a faith in gods. Whether he existed or not as a human being has nothing to do with atheism. It only affects belief in the Christian god.

The base of atheist beliefs is found in naturalism, from which it spans. Thus, all that was, is, and will be real, for the atheist, is matter. There are two other branches of worldviews, namely Transcendentalism and Theism, but in this mini debate, the only one that needs explaining is naturalism, which, by definition, is not contradicted by Jesus's existence as a person.

The three branches can be differentiated in what they think ultimate reality is. Here is the most basic classification I have seen:

Naturalism: The world as we see it, Matter.

Transcendentalism: The world as we want it, Spiritual mental psychic powers.

Theism: The world as (the Bible, quran, other monotheistic books) describes it. A personal God.

I don't know if this helps, but here it is.

En el amor interminable de Cristo,
William R Sculley

[rez]

Quote by: Scholars, clergy slam Jesus documentary "And the very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven."

Some other, more compelling things that contradict the Christian belief.

humans create and imagine supernatural beings all the time. Christians display no compelling reason to pick one supernatural belief over the other. All religions are the same, just have different characters in the story.

Someone able to revitalize themselves after they have died is impossible.

The kicker in all this babble about Jesus Christ is that a believer like dthmstr254 uses the same type of reasoning that Zharvic uses. If a bum on the street claims he has supernatural abilities and is the son of god, dthmstr would think he was crazy, yet when it comes to Jesus Christ he believes in him. Even though dthmstr has absolute zero evidence that this bum and Jesus Christ receives these messages from god he accepts one person's assertions over another. Theists have somehow fooled themselves into this way of thinking, which is outrageous.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Ok, then explain why your theory that he did not exist does not show up until recent history.

It has to do with Christians long & well-documented history of MURDERING people who suggest their god isn't real or si slightly different than depicted in the gospels.

Why did the Pharisees not say anything about this Jesus they were accused of killing? Why did Pilate never say anything.

Because it wasn't an issue for them. He wasn't there. The Jesus mythology wasn't developed until late in the first century / early second century.

You claim he did not exist, yet the documentary evidence, some of which I have seen and felt, exceeds the documentary evidence of Homer's Illiad.

The problem is that no one is claiming the events of the Illiad are literally true. There isn't a shred of evidence Achilles was dipped in the Styx as a boy or that any deities showed up during the Trojan war. Are you implying the bible has the same degree of evidence? :)

So now that you have posted these, look up Dr Scott Carrol and other actual archaeologists. Check out the opposing evidence instead of going exclusively to the above sites.

There isn't a shred of archeological evidence for the existence of Jesus. At best archeologists have attempted to evidence places or large events (like wars) that have been claimed in the bible. The apologist reasoning has been to attempt to prop up their unsupported claims with this indirect evidence.

1) Abraham Lincoln was president during the American civil war.
2) Abraham Lincoln was assassinated.
3) Abraham Lincoln was warned of his assassination by an angel and chose to maryr himself.

The first two claims are evidenced. Think they're enough to prove the third? If you say yes, then you're mistaken. If you say no, then you've contradicted yourself.

In fact, I challenge you to make your case like Lee Strobell tried to.

I have a copy of "The Case for Christ" on my bookshelf at home. Poor read. Strobel doesn't actually ask any real questions and when he does, he asks them to incredibly biased individuals. He doesn't interview any atheists of note. He's largely preaching to the choir. Try Challenging the Verdict by Earl Doherty.

Use evidence from Christian experts in concert with that.

What you're challenging me to do? I've already done it. Take a look at the link in my signature that reads Jesus Never Existed. I'd love nothing more than to quote Christian sources with evidence, but there aren't any.

If the sites you posted are your only types of sources, you are sadly cutting out Christianity's part of the argument.

Not at all. As I stated before, I have a copy of Strobell's Case for Christ on my bookshelf at home as well as a few other pro-Christian books. I like to write in the margins & point out all the logical fallcies they employ.

I have not excluded Christian sources a priori. I have excluded them because they appeal to tradition, popular belief, employ circular reasoning and offer no legitimate evidence.

It is a logical fallacy called stacking the cards. Let's cut the deck now and cut out the above sources. Look at actual documents. Look at the evidence opposing you through the unbiased lens instead of through the atheist and agnostic lenses. You are the detective. You are looking for a missing person. Find Him.

lol If you were serious about doing that, you'd likely no longer be Christian.What you're REALLY asking me to do is lower my standards of what should be considered evidence, embrace logical fallacies as valid, consider unsupported impossible mythology as true and embrace propaganda with the same zeal as yourself. If I wanted to do that, I'd just go to church

[Zhavric]

Quote by: rez The kicker in all this babble about Jesus Christ is that a believer like dthmstr254 uses the same type of reasoning that Zharvic uses.

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.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: rez Some other, more compelling things that contradict the Christian belief. humans create and imagine supernatural beings all the time. Christians display no compelling reason to pick one supernatural belief over the other. All religions are the same, just have different characters in the story. Someone able to revitalize themselves after they have died is impossible. The kicker in all this babble about Jesus Christ is that a believer like dthmstr254 uses the same type of reasoning that Zharvic uses. If a bum on the street claims he has supernatural abilities and is the son of god, dthmstr would think he was crazy, yet when it comes to Jesus Christ he believes in him. Even though dthmstr has absolute zero evidence that this bum and Jesus Christ receives these messages from god he accepts one person's assertions over another. Theists have somehow fooled themselves into this way of thinking, which is outrageous.

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.