Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jedi Mind Trick · 03-05-2007, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

That was just my point, people don't die for what they know to be false.

So then which was it, the disciples died for what they knew to be false, or they died for someone who made no claims?

Who said they died as martyres?
Who said they ever lived in the first place?
Who are they anyhow?

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-05-2007, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

That was just my point, people don't die for what they know to be false.

So then which was it, the disciples died for what they knew to be false, or they died for someone who made no claims?

What is your evidence that the disciples did not die of natural causes? What is your evidence that they ever claimed Jesus had been physically resurrected?

Malachi151 · 03-05-2007, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

So then which was it, the disciples died for what they knew to be false, or they died for someone who made no claims?

#1) There were no disciples, there were just apostles, two different things.

#2) Who died for "the cause"? No one knows what happened to Paul, but he never "met Jesus" anyway. The claims of the martyrdom of Peter are 2nd century or later legends. Who else supposedly "died for Jesus"?

#3) Whoever the early Christians were, they certainly believed in the reality of Jesus Christ, first as a heavenly being and later as an heavenly being who came to earth.

Don't forget that the "heretics" were persecuted too, both by non-Christians for being "Christian" and by Catholics Christians for "being heretics".

Why did Marcion and his followers suffer persecution for believing that Jesus was a phantom?

These people all certainly believed very strongly in their religion and in "Jesus Christ", but that doesn't make their beliefs real. People from every culture have died for beliefs in things that aren't real. That's the danger of these types of beliefs.

coloradoatheist · 03-05-2007, 07:26 AM

I watched it until the theologians came on. And besides the 2 hour show that should have been an hour it was good.

Probably already brought up

1) Dever and the other guy didn't understand it, but somebody could verify it, the inscription for Mary Magdalene was something like the master Mary. The statistician in his email said if it was just Mary then the odds go down. Can we verify that it is an uncommon form or characterization of Mary. And I can go look later was that ossuary in the same chamber as Jesus instead of somewhere else (denoting a closer relationship)?

2) Can anyone verify or show the filmmaker's vie that an inverted V with a dot was an early sign of Christianity? That was on the ossuary and on another grave somewhere else.

3) Can we dig up the bones and know which bones are which? Catholicism willl be discredited if all the brothers did have Mary as a common mother and christianityI would say would be discredited if Jesus's dad was Joseph (however the movie said he was buried somewhere else).

4) How did he identify the book was the book of Jonah?

Mike

MortalWombat · 03-05-2007, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

That was just my point, people don't die for what they know to be false.

So there really was a UFO hidden behind comet Hale-Bopp?

MHF · 03-05-2007, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

With or without a bullet?

Several problems:

1) Why would people at the heart of Christianity be inscribing tombs with "Son of Joseph" (the gospels all say Joseph was not the father)?

2) Or "son of Jesus"? This, if discovered, would certainly overthrow the new movement. I would even be able to think of some code that would identify the ossuary, that would not discredit the faith if someone found it, and I'm not a rocket scientist.

3) Rock tombs were for rich people, Jesus' family was notably poor, by all accounts, why would they then have a mausoleum?

4) There is a simple arithmetic error, 1 in 190 is the probability of the name of "Jesus", yet it is also 4%? This can't be.

5) They say more DNA testing should be done, to see if Mary / Jesus / Jose / and so on are related, yet they say there is probably no DNA in the untested boxes. I also wonder who might have "vacuumed out the boxes," not standard procedure in archaeology, I would imagine. "Let's clean up this site!" Erm, no.

6) How could it not be a (say) 2nd century forgery by a skeptic seeking to overturn the case for Jesus' resurrection?

These will do for starters.

1), 2), and 3) are easy
The idea that Jesus is in a grave, that he had a son, etc., all of these things
may not be compatible with current Christian theology, but there is no reason
to think that it is incompatible with the very early Christianity.

6) seems unlikely to me because beliefs are not based on evidence anyway.

The most efficient way to convince someone is not by trying to find evidence
or counter evidence. Rather, the most efficient way to convince a person of
a certain idea is to show that this idea fits well with the beliefs that person
already has. For the Gospel writers, the most important goal is to show
that the Jesus story connects with previous scripture. They place very little
value on physical evidence.

More on 6). I do not know how to rule out this scenario though. If it's a forgery
it does seem like an overly expensive one though.

coloradoatheist · 03-05-2007, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MortalWombat

So there really was a UFO hidden behind comet Hale-Bopp?

Did they know it to be false?

As others said, for the followers of Jesus to be martyred has two problems, that they were martyred and that they were martyred for the reason you think they were martyred. Good luck.

Mike

MortalWombat · 03-05-2007, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coloradoatheist

Did they know it to be false?

That's my point. Just because the vast majority of people know something is false, doesn't mean that the "true believers" do.

This is even assuming that the stories of apostles dying for their beliefs (which didn't emerge until much later than the gospels) were true.

douglas · 03-05-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I think that his career will be significantly undermined by all of this. I felt his comments on the scriptural stuff was horribly weak and mis-representative.

Which specific comments are you referring to? I'm not disagreeing with you, just looking for more specifics.

Quote:

His comments on the genealogies of Luke and Matthew alone should discredit him as a reputable scholar.

Same question as above. Does the fact that he takes the Luke/Matthew genealogies as representing an actual lineage discredit him?

coloradoatheist · 03-05-2007, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas

Which specific comments are you referring to? I'm not disagreeing with you, just looking for more specifics.

Same question as above. Does the fact that he takes the Luke/Matthew genealogies as representing an actual lineage discredit him?

He took the lineages to be one of Mary and the other of Joseph. He did this because they couldn't explain why a Matthew was in the grave site. I don't know what his studies of the NT are or just cursurary.

Mike

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2007, 07:26 AM	#34
coloradoatheist Contributor Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: denver Posts: 11,319	I watched it until the theologians came on. And besides the 2 hour show that should have been an hour it was good. Probably already brought up 1) Dever and the other guy didn't understand it, but somebody could verify it, the inscription for Mary Magdalene was something like the master Mary. The statistician in his email said if it was just Mary then the odds go down. Can we verify that it is an uncommon form or characterization of Mary. And I can go look later was that ossuary in the same chamber as Jesus instead of somewhere else (denoting a closer relationship)? 2) Can anyone verify or show the filmmaker's vie that an inverted V with a dot was an early sign of Christianity? That was on the ossuary and on another grave somewhere else. 3) Can we dig up the bones and know which bones are which? Catholicism willl be discredited if all the brothers did have Mary as a common mother and christianityI would say would be discredited if Jesus's dad was Joseph (however the movie said he was buried somewhere else). 4) How did he identify the book was the book of Jonah? Mike

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.