Elizabeth0618

Actually, there are no bones in the ossuary - at all.

aa5874

There are no extra-biblical contemporary historian or writer, in the 1st century, who have mentioned any apocalyptic cult of which Jesus the Christ was the leader.

Your explanation is unlikely since there is no evidence to support it.


Jesus the Christ cannot be located in the 1st century, it is hardly likely that he taught anything, since no extra-biblical contemporary writer or historian wrote a single word about him, his teachings, or his followers.


Mythical entities do not exist in 'their own time', they are just placed in the author's 'time zone'. Jesus the Christ, the myth, was placed in many many 'time zones'. See 'Against Heresies' by Irenaeus to find out about the multitude of failed concepts of the myth.

Toto

NY Times article contains more detail, plus this from Ben Witherington:

Ruhan

My problem with Witherington's criticism which is similar to the remarks of many other Biblical "scholars" thus far is that they are comparing the details of the find with the Biblical narrative. Some have suggested that this could not be Jesus' family as they would have been buried around Nazareth where they lived "according to the Bible" or Jesus did not have a child "according to the Bible".

If the story of Jesus was based on some diluted core story such as the life of Rabbi Yeshu who was a rebellious rabbi who had a large following and was executed for his teachings by the Jewish elders, then you wouldn't find a crucified body. His family would also not have been from Nazareth but Rabbi Yeshu was based in Jerusalem. My point being is that Christians would dismiss this find because it does not line up with the Biblical account even if the Biblical Jesus was actually based upon a character such as Rabbi Yeshu.

The NT cannot and is not regarded as a pure historical record in the same way that it is not a scientific book. Historians are doing the same thing as what scientists used to do. The use the Bible as a platform and then try to match science to it instead of using science itself as your platform. This is a trick that many Creationists use and I fear that Historians have fallen into the same trap.

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.

Carin Nel

I read an interesting article on "scientific proof of Christ's resurrection" here:

http://www.assistnews.net/STORIES/2007/s07010172.htm

Also: TV Special on Jesus' Grave -- Another Hoax here:

http://www.earnedmedia.org/ncc0225.htm

Regards,
Carin Nel

Ruhan

Sigh...

Mev. Nel.

The first is not scientific. It uses the Bible in a court case scenario but fails to admit that the Bible would simply be seen as hearsay. It's nonsense.

The second is written by a Reverend. Case closed.

Nialler

I won't bother checking the second link as the first one was so nonsensical.

What th ehell in that article was "scientific"? All they did was refer to accounts of the resurrection. That is the point which needs to be proven. Pointing to further claims that it happened achieves nothing in terms of proving it as fact, and is certainly not a scientific approach. These people are idiots or expect that their audience is.

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.

ApostateAbe

I think it is great that Christians are at least pretending to take a scientific approach to their doctrines. It shows a value for science. But, as science, it needs details and peer review and all of that. The times when Christianity takes on a face of science is most often when I see the worst examples of fraud.

"There were at least 500 eyewitnesses in and around Jerusalem who actually saw or talked with Jesus after His Resurrection. Beyond the Bible, there are more than 20 non-Christian sources written between 30 and 130 A.D. that refer to Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure. Twelve mention His death and provide details on how He died. Ten of these refer to His Resurrection."

Sadly, there is considerably less than 20 non-Christian sources on Jesus written between 30 and 130 A.D. The non-Christian historical record is almost entirely silent on the matter. It is just a ballsy outright lie.