leonarde

Partial post by Family Man a page or two back: Here we come to what, to me,
is the crux of the problem: you, like alas Ion and
perhaps a few others, see history books as books
in which "everything mentioned is true" and then
in this post of a page or two ago, you falsely attribute this IDEA (ie that the Bible or the NT
IS such a book) to me. NOWHERE in any of these pages will you find me saying that-----OR ANYTHING
LIKE IT: it is your misconstruing of my position.
I take it that ALL "history" books have errors,
tendentious interpretations etc. in them. But that
is for secular AND religious "histories".

Therefore I EXPECT such WEAKNESSES and they aren't
such a big deal. A big deal as they are for the
fundamentalists......and their non-theist absolutist counterparts.

Cheers!

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

Ion

The Gallic wars between Iulius Caesar and Vercingetorix, are backed up by contemporary testimonies independent with each other (Roman, Welsh, Gothic and Franks texts), by independent frescoes in Rome (the column of Traian has some motifs describing the Gallic wars) and in Wales, and by archaelogical artifacts, like an inscribed spear and a piece of an armor dated back to that event.

By the same standard, I don't know of any archaelogical artifact related to Jesus' miracle existence and resurrection:
a sandal, a cross, a weapon used against Jesus, a wrath, an ossuary, something, anything at all.
I also don't know of any text -independent from Jesus' cult- that mentions Jesus' miracles.

leonarde

Posted by Ion: Well, here's something of some interest:
<a href="http://www.shroud.com/" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/</a>

Cheers!

Ion

So?

"...a centuries old linen of cloth that bears the image of a crucified man." -as stated on your link- means that the cult of Jesus has followers in later on times, medieval times, but it still remains a cult.

It's not about any evidence outside of the cult, and it's not hard evidence of an artifact related to Jesus' personal existence.

Jesus' miracles must have been miracles from the Invisible Man, because unlike Caesar, there are no traces and no independent texts about Jesus.

When I wrote about evidence of the Gallic wars, I mentioned both independent contemporary accounts (Roman, Welsh, Gothic, Frank), and hard contemporary artifacts (spear, armor, frescoes).

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]</p>

Baidarka

Leonarde

The Shroud, the Shroud, Leonarde are you claiming that the Shroud is anything other than a ridiculous forgery? Are you kidding us?
The Shroud does not display the Alfred E Neuman effect (the display of the front and sides of head in the same image) as it would have to if it was real. It is a painting and not a very good one!
I’m very disappointed. This is a very sad down turn in the level of our discourse.

Baidarka

leonarde

Ion,
You asked for an archaeological artifact related
to Jesus of Nazareth, and you mentioned among other things the Resurrection (ie a miracle). The
Shroud is probably his burial cloth. Now you are
trying to back out of what you originally asked
for.

Cheers!

Ion

How so?

I asked for hard evidence of Jesus' miracles, Iulius Caesar kind of evidence.

"...is probably..." is not Iulius Caesar kind of hard, independent contemporary evidence.

leonarde

Ion,
No, you asked for "anything at all" and specifically referred to an ossuary. An ossuary
is a box for holding remains. A burial shroud is
something which envelopes those remains BEFORE
they are reinterred in the ossuary. It is the same
level of "proof". But as the threads on the "James
, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" ossuary make
clear, HAVING a particular artifact doesn't NECESSARILY prove to the skeptical that the
artifact :

1) is genuine.

2) once was associated with a particular historical figure (in your own post you accepted
the EXISTENCE of armour from the Gallic war period
as evidence that Caesar---ie a PARTICULAR PERSON-
participated in a war. Why? And why is an ossuary-
---what you asked for---any better than a shroud?)

Partial post by Ion: I sense an ad hoc quality to all your arguments.

Cheers!

Vorkosigan

But as the threads on the "James
, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" ossuary make
clear, HAVING a particular artifact doesn't NECESSARILY prove to the skeptical that the
artifact :

Some connection would have to be shown, Leonarde. So far nobody has shown any.

leonarde

Vorkosigan,
I understand what you mean. But speaking entirely
hypothetically----but I hope not unrealistically--
what type of indications (given the fact that looters got to the ossuary first)could you ever hope to find on such an artifact?

Cheers!