lee_merrill

I would of course find the skeptic position more plausible if the skeptics could only agree on basic points as to which parts are real and which are not.

But why die for a person who made no claims?

spin

I don't know how often I have to take people to task on both sides of the divide for say this sort of crap about frauds, fakes and fiction. That something might not be based on reality doesn't make that something fraud, fake or fiction, simply not real.

Something that is not real doesn't have to be obvious to anyone. Many intelligent scientists were convinced that aether existed as a medium to carry light from the sun to the earth. It may be obvious now that aether does not exist, but you cannot fault people then believing in its existence then.

The people who kill themselves as suicide bombers do not see any sense of fraud, fake or fiction behind their willingness to die for what they believe in. Willingness to die for one's cause guarantees that the person who die does not see the reasoning as fraud, fake or fiction.

In America almost all non-christians and most non-fundamentalists would consider that you are obviously wrong in your adherence to your old earth creation stuff. Some of the non-christians would believe that you are deluded by an obvious fraud, so your own position should convince you of the error of the simplistic analysis which brought you to conclude: "So then we have the followers of Jesus dying for an obvious fraud."

Just remember the words Hamlet said to Horatio, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt about in your philosophy."


spin

Malachi151

Once again, the Jesus Myth view is the most consistent and covers all of the facts the best, hence the reason that I don't believe this tomb has anything to do with the Jesus of the Gospels. Again, see my blog post, already linked earlier in the thread.

Jedi Mind Trick

Well said.

douglas

Regardless of the outcome, I've been impressed with Dr. Tabor and is handling of the uproar. You can argue with his opinions, but I'm not sure you can question his integrity. This quote on his blog is revealing...

I don't see the point in jumping to conclusion either way. Let the science work itself out, and let's hope this doesn't turn into another Salman Rushdie affair.

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.

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

ElectEngr

I thought the show was well done as far as entertainment goes.

The panel discussion, I thought, ol' Ted was going for the 30 sec sound bite answers and wasn't getting them.

Reed lost me with his "Docu-porn" comment. From then on, to me anyway, he was a total twit.

"Salman Rushdie affair"...wasn't that a Man From UNCLE episode. (j/k):Cheeky:

Later,
ElectEngr

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?

spin

You're now into denial mode, lee_merrill.


spin

Diogenes the Cynic

The objection that the followers of Jesus "would not have died for a fraud" is a canard. In point of fact, there is no real evidence that the direct followers were martyred for ANY reason and there is no direct evidence that any of them believed in a physical resurrection. There are no primary or secondary claims of such a belief by any disciples, and the claim is absent from the earliest strata of Christian literature. Paul does not say the resurrection was physical and claims that physical resurrections can't happen. He speaks only of "appearances" by Jesus and does not distinguish between the appearances to Cephas and James et al and to himself (Paul). Paul does not speak of an empty tomb. There is no resurrection of any kind in Q or Thomas. The first known claim for an empty tomb doesn't come until Mark, a non-witness, 40 years after the crucifixion and the first claim for Jesus physically appearing to disciples isn't made until Matthew's Gospel, 50 years after the crucifxion.

Could you please provide the evidence that a.) the direct followers of Jesus ever claimed he had been physically resurrected and that b.) any of them were killed for saying so.
I believe the IAA claim is that only the "brother of Jesus" part of the inscription was forged.
Jocobovici addressed this by saying that the inscription was very faint and covered with soil and that it was not immediately visible at the time of the first dig. The archaeologist in question did not say that he knew where the missing ossuary was now.