[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Isn't is great you can debate Jesus and Christianity without the fear of people dieing over it?

Of course, such a subject could still draw Muslim ire anyway because Muslims do revere Jesus.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Isn't is great you can debate Jesus and Christianity without the fear of people dieing over it?

baby jesus cries everytime there is a debate

[imitchellg5]

That's funny. I wonder how they came back to life to tell us about Jesus' body in heaven since that's where it's at.

[faragbre967]

Assuming this is true... big assumption, but if it is. What does this do to Christianity and Islam? It would most certainly destroy all Christian faiths on all accounts except that his teachings are still applicable. But what about Islam? Jesus is regarded as a prophet by Muslims. He's even included in their end of days prophecies. Would this somehow hurt that faith as well?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by faragbre967 

Assuming this is true... big assumption, but if it is. What does this do to Christianity and Islam? It would most certainly destroy all Christian faiths on all accounts except that his teachings are still applicable. But what about Islam? Jesus is regarded as a prophet by Muslims. He's even included in their end of days prophecies. Would this somehow hurt that faith as well?

I don't think it would really affect Islam at all. Islam's position on Jesus (as I understand it) is that he was a prophet, but not in any way divine. So this would really just fit right into what they already though.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

A new article on it: New film claims Jesus buried in Talpiot | Jerusalem Post

Apparently the archaeologist in charge of the dig is saying that Cameron's full of it.

To be fair, even if the claim is true, I wouldn't expect the archaeologist in charge of the dig to be very supportive of the documentary. He's not exactly painted in the best light:

It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.
Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by faragbre967 

Assuming this is true... big assumption, but if it is. What does this do to Christianity and Islam? It would most certainly destroy all Christian faiths on all accounts except that his teachings are still applicable. But what about Islam? Jesus is regarded as a prophet by Muslims. He's even included in their end of days prophecies. Would this somehow hurt that faith as well?

Even if true, nothing would convince religious fundamentalists from Christianity and Islam.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

To be fair, even if the claim is true, I wouldn't expect the archaeologist in charge of the dig to be very supportive of the documentary. He's not exactly painted in the best light:

On the other hand. If it were true, it would totally make his career regardless of what light the documentary painted him in.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

baby jesus cries everytime there is a debate

Debate teams are an abomination against the values this country was founded on! I'm proposing a constitutional amendment to ban all forms of debate and protect our children from the insidious influences of debate and logic!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

On the other hand. If it were true, it would totally make his career regardless of what light the documentary painted him in.

I don't know about that. Sounds like he only documented the tomb and that somebody else made the "discovery/claim" that it was Jesus' tomb.

If true, he stands to go down in history as the archaeologist who wasn't able to connect a tomb containing the bodies of a carpenter named Joseph, his wife Mary, their son Jesua and his wife Mary. If true, that amounts to finding a large, sunken ocean liner with the words "Titanic" painted on it's hull, and not recognizing that you've found the Titanic.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Debate teams are an abomination against the values this country was founded on! I'm proposing a constitutional amendment to ban all forms of debate and protect our children from the insidious influences of debate and logic!

I have no problems with debates, but they are no place for logic to be involved.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I have no problems with debates, but they are no place for logic to be involved.

Like a magical all powerful invisible ghost who seems to be devoid of any feelings?

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

How does finding his body prove there wasn't a resurrection?

Good point. The body of Christ would prove there was no Ascension, but it would not disprove the Resurrection. He could've woken from death on the third day, as claimed, and then died and been buried again. Even the Ascension could still hold, if you accept the idea of the visible spirit of Christ ascending and leaving the "atomistic husk" behind.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

He could've woken from death on the third day, as claimed, and then died and been buried again.

Uh huh... pretty far fetched, and what purpose would that serve from a theological standpoint anyway?

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Uh huh... pretty far fetched, and what purpose would that serve from a theological standpoint anyway?

What purpose would it serve? Are you saying coming back from the dead only serves a purpose if you don't go and die again? What about Lazarus? He died twice too.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Of course, such a subject could still draw Muslim ire anyway because Muslims do revere Jesus.

Well, where are the masses of muslims rioting in the streets?

Beuller...
Beuller...

[RAILhead]

Even Cameron, pushed to support his claims, said statisticians found "in the range of a couple of million to one in favor of it being them."

Well, that kills the anti-Jesus angle, doesn't it?

[Macrobat]

His "statistics" are based on the existence of the three (actually rather common) names being found inscribed together on ossuaries in the same tomb - that's all - not any real science.

On a related note:

Point Five � Climatologists: Jesus Tomb Does Not Disprove Global Warming

Gotta love the sub-head:

Existence of Research Dollars "Strongest Evidence Yet" Of Human- Caused Temperature Shifts

[OldManMac]

Here's a take on it that makes sense to me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-...x_b_42195.html

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Here's a take on it that makes sense to me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-...x_b_42195.html

Haven't read the whole thing yet, but he kinda loses any credibility with me when he says this:

As it happens, Cameron and Jacobovichi claimed only last summer to have "proved" the Exodus. Well, which is it? Either their first documentary is false, or this one is false. Of course, they don't care. They profit either way. (In fact, both are false.)

Um, no. Whether or not Exodus is an accurate historical account has no bearing whatsoever on the divinity of Jesus.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Um, no. Whether or not Exodus is an accurate historical account has no bearing whatsoever on the divinity of Jesus.

You don't understand. Everyone has to have an agenda. He has to decide whether he is going to prove Christianity is right, or he has to prove Christianity is all false. We will not have any objectiveness here.

[nonhuman]

Some more problems with that post (now that I've read it all):

2. A family from Nazareth would not be buried in Jerusalem. Jewish custom holds that a body should be buried within 24 hours. I recently heard of a family that hired a private plane to get a body from Cleveland to Jerusalem in time. It would have been impossible to get a body from Nazareth, in the Galilee, to Jerusalem in this time period. Also, there's no way for a family to tend a grave this far away. So the idea of a multi-generational family tomb for Jesus in Jerusalem makes no sense. Even the archaeologist who discovered the cave originally, Amos Kloner, has dismissed the show as "nonsense."

It doesn't matter that Jesus was from Nazareth. We know that he died in Jerusalem. Therefore being buried within 24 hours according to Jewish custom would have required that he be buried in Jerusalem, not his native Nazareth. And since he was living in Jerusalem at the time, it makes sense that his wife and children would also have been there and even remained there until they were also eventually buried with him. As for his mother, she may have come to live with them in her old age or something like that. This in no way debunks the claim.

4. The DNA evidence that Jesus was not connected to the Mary buried in the tomb does not prove anything, other than they are not related matrilnearly. For all we know, they could have been related patrilinearly. Or, they could never have met. There is no evidence the female body belonged to someone who was "married" to anyone else in the tomb. There is no evidence she was the mother of anyone else in the tomb. And we can be sure they checked that! So the claim that Jesus fathered a son with the "Mary" in the tomb is bogus.

This is just bewildered rambling. Where does it say that they only tested mDNA (which is what would be required to prove matrilineal relation)? And where does it say that the DNA evidence is the only evidence they have? Sure, I think the DNA claims are completely bogus, but even they have more credibility than this load of crap.

If you're going to try and debunk bad science, try using real science to do it.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You don't understand. Everyone has to have an agenda. He has to decide whether he is going to prove Christianity is right, or he has to prove Christianity is all false. We will not have any objectiveness here.

Yeah, but even so the argument is just nonsense. Christianity could be false even if Exodus is true. Proving Exodus could only possibly prove that Judaism is right (and even then, you'd still need a whole hell of a lot more corroborating evidence), not that Christianity is right.

That's like saying that if accounts of the American Revolution are proven true, that accounts of the Civil War must be false.

[ironknee]

i love how these christians say finding jesus' bones is unbelievable, yet they think jesus rose from the dead is belieable.

[Sky Captain]

Or that muslims believe Muhammed ascended to heaven believebale.

[Mark Larr]

Or the MagicMeteor™ will absolve them of their "sins" if they kiss it.

[Millennium]

An interesting point here: the ossuaries were empty, yet they claim to have gotten DNA evidence out of them anyway. Assuming that the ossuraies contained bones that later disintegrated I can see how there might have been some residue, but enough (and in good enough condition) to provide sufficient DNA samples?

Forgive me if this seems a little far-fetched. I'm beginning to think that this is nothing more than a publicity stunt for some new film of Cameron's.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Like a magical all powerful invisible ghost who seems to be devoid of any feelings?

Not devoid of jealousy and rage he ain't

[Macrobat]

He was also buried in a borrowed tomb, according to the Gospels.

[Rumor]

How do you borrow a tomb?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

How do you borrow a tomb?

Temporarily evict the previous tenant.

[Moderator]

I have news for you...if there are 2 billion Christians...I bet 1.75 billion of them do not really believe in thier heart of hearts that this fella damed Jesus woke up from the dead like some zombie, walked out of his tomb, and then flew up to...where exactly?

How do you "ascend" to heaven anyway...do you fly? fly where? to another dimension? I'm betting those con-men who wrote the new testament meant that he flew up into the sky. But we know that to not be true.

I can promise you one thing....Jesus would be aghast at the mockery that has been made of his name in the name of religion. This was likely a great man..who has been turned into some comic book superhero by self serving human beings.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Moderator 

I can promise you one thing....Jesus would be aghast at the mockery that has been made of his name in the name of religion. This was likely a great man..who has been turned into some comic book superhero by self serving human beings.

QFT™

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

This is just bewildered rambling. Where does it say that they only tested mDNA (which is what would be required to prove matrilineal relation)? And where does it say that the DNA evidence is the only evidence they have? Sure, I think the DNA claims are completely bogus, but even they have more credibility than this load of crap.

If you're going to try and debunk bad science, try using real science to do it.

In another article it he says what DNA he used.

Millennium

An interesting point here: the ossuaries were empty, yet they claim to have gotten DNA evidence out of them anyway. Assuming that the ossuraies contained bones that later disintegrated I can see how there might have been some residue, but enough (and in good enough condition) to provide sufficient DNA samples?

In other articles archeologists say the bones were reburied after discovery, cameron claims to have used residue from the boxes. I remember when scientists wanted to piece back together the DNA of tazmanian tiger which they had a 50 year ol preserved specimen for, but the DNA was too degraded. mDNA is a bit more simple but still 2000 years old?

Also archs are saying they couldn't date the tomb when they found it and are wondering how cameron did.

[besson3c]

I used to know this guy that called himself Jesus... I thought he was pretty cocky and conceited. There is only one Jesus, and that is the Jesus with the beard and the sandals.

[Andy8]

This is really funny from an atheists point of view

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Forget how many people were buried in the area. Think about grave robbers. Jesus's tomb would be a prime target.

I almost think this would be a good explanation as to why the Deciples said his body was missing from the tomb. Get a fake tomb, bury Jesus in a real tomb elsewhere, but tell the public he's in the fake tomb. When the public finds no body in the fake tomb, tell the public Jesus rose from the dead and that's why he's not in the tomb. Takes care of the grave robber problem, but Jesus's real body would get lost over time.

Except for a few minor details.
first his disciples litterly gave up everything and all but one apostle died a marytr. I don't know too many people willing to die for a lie.
Another issue, what was there to gain for the disciples at that time. They were poor, persecuted by the romans and by there own people (The jewish leadership). Again why would they want to give up their livelihood for a lie?
Third problem, the jewish leadership got the romans to guard the tomb, and the leadership knew where he was buried. I don't think an untrained rag tag group of followers would be able to over power the heavily armed guards.

Finally you need look at history, Christians had a lot of enemies (still do) back then. If the apostles said he rose from the dead and it was a lie, the people looking to quash that would either trot out the body or recapture Jesus (if he was alive) they did neither and they could not refute what they had said.

As for the Bible, specifically the new testament. Each letter or gospel had to be either written by an apostle or signed off by an apostle, so it makes sense the inaccurate documents that varied greatly to those authorized documents were cast aside. Take the Gospel of Mark, it was written by John Mark and it was dated early enough that if he produced lies the eye whitnesses who opposed Jesus would have easily refuted that the book and it would have gone no where.

For over 2000 years people have attempted to refute and dispel the Bible and for 2000 years it has stood the test of time.

[ironknee]

'Jesus tomb' documentary ignores evidence, logic, experts say

i love the irony of this headline

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

Except for a few minor details.
first his disciples litterly gave up everything and all but one apostle died a marytr. I don't know too many people willing to die for a lie.
Another issue, what was there to gain for the disciples at that time. They were poor, persecuted by the romans and by there own people (The jewish leadership). Again why would they want to give up their livelihood for a lie?
Third problem, the jewish leadership got the romans to guard the tomb, and the leadership knew where he was buried. I don't think an untrained rag tag group of followers would be able to over power the heavily armed guards.

Finally you need look at history, Christians had a lot of enemies (still do) back then. If the apostles said he rose from the dead and it was a lie, the people looking to quash that would either trot out the body or recapture Jesus (if he was alive) they did neither and they could not refute what they had said.

As for the Bible, specifically the new testament. Each letter or gospel had to be either written by an apostle or signed off by an apostle, so it makes sense the inaccurate documents that varied greatly to those authorized documents were cast aside. Take the Gospel of Mark, it was written by John Mark and it was dated early enough that if he produced lies the eye whitnesses who opposed Jesus would have easily refuted that the book and it would have gone no where.

For over 2000 years people have attempted to refute and dispel the Bible and for 2000 years it has stood the test of time.

Two words: Heaven's Gate

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

For over 2000 years people have attempted to refute and dispel the Bible and for 2000 years it has stood the test of time.

I don't want to start a religious flame war, but all I will say is the Christian Bible has stood the test of time only for Christians. The same can be said of most every extant holy book on earth. (In my case, it is also true to say the Hebrew Scriptures has stood the test of time only for Jews.)

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

Except for a few minor details.
first his disciples litterly gave up everything and all but one apostle died a marytr. I don't know too many people willing to die for a lie.
Another issue, what was there to gain for the disciples at that time. They were poor, persecuted by the romans and by there own people (The jewish leadership). Again why would they want to give up their livelihood for a lie?
Third problem, the jewish leadership got the romans to guard the tomb, and the leadership knew where he was buried. I don't think an untrained rag tag group of followers would be able to over power the heavily armed guards.

I don't doubt Jesus wasn't important. However, I think Jesus was more of a political reformer, not a devine prophet. Martin Luther King made mention of God many times in his interactions with the public. Does this make him a religious prophet? No, he was a political figure.

If you look at church history, Jesus's original followers did not think he was devine. When the Romans converted, they added the idea of Jesus being a devine figure. It fit better with the ideas they brought over from paganism. This caused issues, the religion wasn't united. The old believers still insisted that Jesus was a man, and the newer converts thought Jesus was a god.

Finally the Church met in 325 and actually voted on what they thought was correct. This is really where the Church first started editing history. It was decided that they would compromise. Jesus would be divine, but he wouldn't be a god. Instead, the Holy Trinity was created.

You can find the proof of this all happening in every mass. At this meeting, which took place in Nicaea, the Nicaean creed was written. The Nicaean Creed was written to outline exactly what the Church's dogma would be.

Take a look at the original creed, especially the end:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost."

Now here is the end. This was written specifically to address the original believers who still believed Jesus was a man:

"But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable' — they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church."

Nice, huh?

Jesus was probably an extremely bright and important guy. But divinity? No, the Romans worked that into the dogma.

The reason Jesus was actually killed was not that anyone particularly hated him. I'm sure the Jewish leadership was annoyed with him. But you have to understand, the last time a "prophet" entered Jeruselam, he caused a riot and got many people killed. Jesus was killed for local security reasons, not because anyone really had it out for Jesus.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

Except for a few minor details.
first his disciples litterly gave up everything and all but one apostle died a marytr. I don't know too many people willing to die for a lie.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by goMac 

If you look at church history, Jesus's original followers did not think he was devine. When the Romans converted, they added the idea of Jesus being a devine figure. It fit better with the ideas they brought over from paganism. This caused issues, the religion wasn't united. The old believers still insisted that Jesus was a man, and the newer converts thought Jesus was a god.

Finally the Church met in 325 and actually voted on what they thought was correct. This is really where the Church first started editing history. It was decided that they would compromise. Jesus would be divine, but he wouldn't be a god. Instead, the Holy Trinity was created.

John 8:58 (written way before 325, as far as I know) has Jesus pretty obviously claiming to be the God of the Old Testament.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

John 8:58 (written way before 325, as far as I know) has Jesus pretty obviously claiming to be the God of the Old Testament.

Strange. According to Christian Dogma, Jesus is not god. Saying so is a blasphemy. (Actually, refer back to the nicean creed, which explicitely states Jesus is not God.)

Regardless a) The Bible as we have it now is not the original document b) The writer of John was most likely not there c) John 8:58 does not clearly say the Jesus is god:

54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

It's not exactly strong evidence. But again, this is assuming the Bible is line by line historically accurate, which it is not.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

John 8:58 (written way before 325, as far as I know) has Jesus pretty obviously claiming to be the God of the Old Testament.

John 8:50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.
John 8:54 Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.

In context, he specifically denies that he is God, but maintains that God is his father.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

John 8:50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.
John 8:54 Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.

In context, he specifically denies that he is God, but maintains that God is his father.

In context, he claims both — that his father is God and that this makes him also God.

Incidentally, for anyone who doesn't get the reference: The reason for Jesus' strange phrasing in John 8:58 is that he's referring to the name God gives for himself in the Old Testament, "I AM." This is why Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM." He's making an unmistakable reference to the name of God in talking about himself, and that's why the Pharisees tried to stone him at that point.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Uh huh... pretty far fetched, and what purpose would that serve from a theological standpoint anyway?

You are jewish. You don't understand.

V

[undotwa]

Unless everything that is written in the gospels and epistles are wrong, there is no way that Jesus could merely be a political reformer. That is just a ludicrous assertion. His message was religious - it was about the salvation of souls. That is so clearly spelt out throughout the New Testament. Jesus didn't just mention God - he basically only spoke about God. There is a major difference between his message and that of Martin Luther King's.

Also, anyone claiming that Jesus's divinity was a later Roman interpolation must check his facts. There is so much written well before the Council of Nicea that confirms a general belief in Christ's divinity - not to mention what's written in the New Testament. You can believe what you will, but don't tout your own hypotheses as fact. You may argue perhaps that the Romans suppressed those who opposed this teaching (say for instance the Arians, who incidentally didn't merely hold Jesus as a 'great man') but it would be ahistorical to say that this teaching didn't exist before the Council of Nicea as the historical record is clearly against it.

[undotwa]

[QUOTE=goMac;3313268 (Actually, refer back to the nicean creed, which explicitely states Jesus is not God.)[/QUOTE]

The Nicene Creed explictedly says that Jesus Christ is 'homoousios' with the father. This literally means 'of like being'. If to have the same being as God does not make one God, what does it make you?

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

John 8:50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.
John 8:54 Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.

In context, he specifically denies that he is God, but maintains that God is his father.

The relationship between the persons in the Trinity is not an easy concept, especially in regard to hypostatic union between Christ's divine and human natures. Christ's human nature is in a sense inferior to God as it is created ('The Father is greater than I'), but his divine nature is equal to it.

The difficulty in expressing this relationship is absolutely present in scripture. Scripture has the Holy Spirit for its author, but it is bound to the limitations of human language.

I would like to write a fuller explanation (and actually refer to the points you have raised), but this area of theology is actually quite complex. It takes a while to work out how one is actually to phrase an answer, because there are so many subtleties that need to be addressed. But in all this, the key is to always realise that the ultimate answer remains a mystery. I will say this however - the distinction between Christ's divine and human wills is very necessary for Christ's sacrifice to be efficacious. It was the Father's will that Christ be sacrificed, not Christ's human will. The perfect submission of Christ's human will is essentially what this sacrifice is all about. Otherwise there will be no sacrifice, as Christ would simply be fulfilling his own will. It fulfills so beautifully Psalm 50 (or 51 depending on what Bible you use), the 'miserere' what indeed sacrifice truly is:

16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.

19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.