Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ruhan · 02-27-2007, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Ewins

A number of statisticians have calculated that there is only 1 chance in 100 that it is NOT the biblical Jesus' tomb.

The reasoning is based upon the commonality of those names at that time being grouped in the same way as those that were found.

Yes, using census data it can be determined that the names Joseph and Jesus and Mary were all common at the time but the same data shows that the commonality decreases when you look at how many Josephs were married to a Mary and decreases again when considering how many of those pairings had a son named Jesus and so on and so on.

It is very intriguing.

Initially I was very sceptical of this find and it sounded very sensationalistic like the way they went on about the Gospel of Judas.

It's the familial relationships that have increased the odds of this being THE Jesus' family and which has made me wonder if this could possibly be the find of our times. The odds of having this type of family structure with these types of names is fascinating!

Roller · 02-27-2007, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

We don't have non-Christian sources about Jesus because, theoretically, Jesus was just one of many apocalyptic prophets existing in Judea under Roman rule, and some of those other prophets attracted a greater immediate following and left a greater immediate impact, like "the Egyptian" and John the Baptist. The following of Jesus became notably significant only after his religion grew. The apocalyptic-prophet theory is not without evidence. On the contrary, it is based on passages in the Bible with implications that Christian apologists are ashamed about. Read Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32 for "this generation will not pass away before all these things take place," speaking of the end of the world. Also, see Mark 9:1 and Matthew 16:27-28 for, "truly I say to you, some of you standing here will not taste death before you see the son of man coming in his kingdom." The three synoptic gospels are the earliest accounts, with Mark and Q being source material for Matthew and Luke (50-60 CE). Later Christian accounts contain apologies like in John 21:20-23 (90 CE).

²⁰Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"

²¹So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?"

²²Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!"

²³Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?"

It is an excuse for the failed prophecy after the disciples had already died. Such a thing is seen again in 2 Peter 3:3-4,8

³Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, ⁴and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."

...

⁸But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

The Christians had to defend themselves against the mockers who were happy to point out that the prophecy of Jesus failed. Christians simply reformulated time.

The idea that Jesus started as a myth isn't hugely different from the idea that Jesus started as a man and became a myth. One goes with the best available evidence, which isn't much. When did Irenaeus place the time of Jesus, do you know? I was under the impression that Jesus' time was always placed in the early first century CE. That is when Pilate ruled Judea.

You could also expand your point by showing how Jesus' ministry started and the nature of early congregations. Perhaps also by showing how later gospels (after Mark) are trying to mute the apocalyptic message.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=137

modernPrimitive · 02-27-2007, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Ewins

A number of statisticians have calculated that there is only 1 chance in 100 that it is NOT the biblical Jesus' tomb.

I read 1 in 600, so I'm 99.8333'% sure that the common Xtian interpretation is wrong. That's all the evidence I need - though I've known this for a long time....

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/0...20070225073000

ApostateAbe · 02-27-2007, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roller

You could also expand your point by showing how Jesus' ministry started and the nature of early congregations. Perhaps also by showing how later gospels (after Mark) are trying to mute the apocalyptic message.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=137

Yeah, Ehrman makes that point about the apocalyptic message being downgraded, but it seems a little too subtle in comparison to the other lines of evidence.

driver8 · 02-27-2007, 06:50 AM

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

If you were wondering about the DNA aspect:

Quote:

The ossuaries do not contain any bones. The bones were reburied after their discovery, as is standard practice with archaeological finds in Israel.

But Jacobovici said DNA evidence can nonetheless be collected from the boxes. He said DNA analysis has so far proved that Jesus and Mariamene, the putative Mary Magdalene, were not siblings and therefore could have been husband and wife.

driver8 · 02-27-2007, 07:00 AM

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/26/D8NHFDRG3.html

Quote:

"The historical, religious and archaeological evidence show that the place where Christ was buried is the Church of the Resurrection," said Attallah Hana, a Greek Orthodox clergyman in Jerusalem. The documentary, he said, "contradicts the religious principles and the historic and spiritual principles that we hold tightly to."

This quote was in my morning paper. Anyone able to elaborate on this "evidence?" Isn't "buried" an awkward term in this case?

Ruhan · 02-27-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driver8

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/26/D8NHFDRG3.html

This quote was in my morning paper. Anyone able to elaborate on this "evidence?" Isn't "buried" an awkward term in this case?

That church is a joke. I have been in that Orthodox church in Jerusalem. It's obviously decorated to the hilt and extremely tacky. There is no evidence for it being the burial place of Jesus but it's simply Orthodox church tradition.

lee_merrill · 02-27-2007, 09:55 AM

Some other possibilities:

1) People took on names of people they admired, and the probability of families with some of these names within Christian circles increased, as similarly, John is one of the most common names in Western culture. As also similarly, I expect there are a good many Hispanic families with members variously named Jesus, Jose, Maria, and so on.

2) Some 1st-century skeptics (2nd/3rd/... century?) produced an ossuary-box to overturn the Christian faith (hoaxes didn't start in the 20th century). I don't suppose any such skeptics would want to do that?

But certainly it's best to see if the box is indeed genuine, it seems they're getting some practice in evaluating ossuaries.

gstafleu · 02-27-2007, 10:04 AM

How good is the timing on these boxes? They, and the inscriptions, would have to be reliably dated to the 1st century in order to eliminate the possibility of a pious fraud.

Gerard Stafleu

show_no_mercy · 02-27-2007, 10:48 AM

A Christian friend of mine said that this wouldn't shake the Christian faith because "we don't know what happened after he ascended to heaven. He could have came back down to earth and then died".

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

02-27-2007, 09:55 AM	#58
lee_merrill Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,074	Some other possibilities: 1) People took on names of people they admired, and the probability of families with some of these names within Christian circles increased, as similarly, John is one of the most common names in Western culture. As also similarly, I expect there are a good many Hispanic families with members variously named Jesus, Jose, Maria, and so on. 2) Some 1st-century skeptics (2nd/3rd/... century?) produced an ossuary-box to overturn the Christian faith (hoaxes didn't start in the 20th century). I don't suppose any such skeptics would want to do that? But certainly it's best to see if the box is indeed genuine, it seems they're getting some practice in evaluating ossuaries.

02-27-2007, 10:04 AM	#59
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	How good is the timing on these boxes? They, and the inscriptions, would have to be reliably dated to the 1st century in order to eliminate the possibility of a pious fraud. Gerard Stafleu

02-27-2007, 10:48 AM	#60
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	A Christian friend of mine said that this wouldn't shake the Christian faith because "we don't know what happened after he ascended to heaven. He could have came back down to earth and then died".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.