MERGED-->Jesus- Tomb found with body + James Cameron is...

[Irvine511]

I've felt the same way about so called "Biblical Archeologists" who rarely get the time of day when the do discover evidence to support biblical history.

ever heard of the Discovery Institute? you know, the scientists who find "evidence" for Intelligent Design?

same thing. when you know what you want, it becomes so much easier to find it.

 

[AEON]

ever heard of the Discovery Institute? you know, the scientists who find "evidence" for Intelligent Design?

same thing. when you know what you want, it becomes so much easier to find it.

Weird, even Einstein acknowledged ID. What an idiot.

 

[Irvine511]

I just saw this interesting post in response to the Time magazine article...


However, some so-called enlightenend people would never question Plato or Aristotle (very few copies and known 1200 - 1400 years following their origination), yet they question eyewitnesses recorded less than 30 years after Christ's Resurrection and of which we have over 25,000 original copies.

but this is absurd.

no one makes claims about Plato or Aristotle in the same way that they make claims about Jesus, and they don't use Plato or Aristotle to bash gay people or influence American legislation. those who take the Bible literally invite far, far, far more scrutiny, and thusly their claims should be placed under far, far, far more rigor, than anything by Plato or Aristotle.

good gosh. we're to take literally an eyewitness account 30 years after the fact as inerrant truth?

it is those who insist upon biblical inerrancy that invite the skepticism and often disdain you sometimes receive. the defensive posturing, and slamming of James Cameron, is only to be expected as it comes from a position of weakness ... such great claims are made, such unfair expectations have been placed upon Jesus and the Bible, that i suppose it's only natural to get feral in our defenses.

 

[Irvine511]

Weird, even Einstein acknowledged ID. What an idiot.

could you cite the precise propaganda pamphlet you've pulled this from?

i GUARANTEE you Einstein would reject resounding the crap we now know as ID.

 

[Angela Harlem]

People flat out do not rise from the dead. It's factual. Defibrillators can help resuscitate someone, or someone might be unconscious for a period of time, or even brain dead for a few minutes with no serious long term effects, but there's no rising from the dead. Miracles really need an agreed upon definition before we even go there. Maybe I am too cynical, hence not getting this God business. These comments by me are not about us in particular, but about how we (people) in general tend to ignore and grab which ever research backs up something we have already put stock in. I'm not saying we are ignorant, but if absolute proof ever came about, one way or the other, would be even believe it then? I'm thinking not.

 

[speedracer]

could you cite the precise propaganda pamphlet you've pulled this from?

i GUARANTEE you Einstein would reject resounding the crap we now know as ID.

I would guess it's an extrapolation from Einstein's pithy quote that "God does not play dice".

It is theoretically possible that ID could estimate that it's 99% likely that humans did not evolve through an accumulation of random mutations. The closest analogy would be if you had a coin, flipped it 100 times in a row and it came up heads every time. You'd probably conclude that it was designed to produce that outcome (i.e. it was two-headed).

In reality, I don't think we're ever going to understand what happened over the last billion years well enough to make a confidence estimate of the likelihood of random evolution producing humans. And even if we did, each side has a copout. If the estimate comes out against ID, IDers can always say that an Intelligent Designer can do whatever the hell he wants. If it comes out against blind watchmaker evolution, the pure naturalists can always invoke the anthropic principle -- if things didn't work out right, we wouldn't be here to comment on the matter. So in my view, there's not much value in using the study of evolution to argue for or against the existence of God. Your mileage may vary.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Weird, even Einstein acknowledged ID. What an idiot.

Now that is absurd; there is a difference between recognition that the universe is fine tuned for life (but since life that can produce observers can only possibly exist in a universe where it can exist does not infer creation when there can be a canvass of infinite) and the concept of theistic creation of life forms is vast. ID fails because it can never answer the question of origin in a scientific manner, it implicitly accepts natural selection and evolution on macro-scale and the core concept of irreducable complexity has failed to find any real world examples that held up to scrutiny.

 

[speedracer]

People flat out do not rise from the dead. It's factual. Defibrillators can help resuscitate someone, or someone might be unconscious for a period of time, or even brain dead for a few minutes with no serious long term effects, but there's no rising from the dead. Miracles really need an agreed upon definition before we even go there. Maybe I am too cynical, hence not getting this God business. These comments by me are not about us in particular, but about how we (people) in general tend to ignore and grab which ever research backs up something we have already put stock in. I'm not saying we are ignorant, but if absolute proof ever came about, one way or the other, would be even believe it then? I'm thinking not.

This is true. People also don't allow themselves to be martyred for a cause that they know to be a lie.

I don't think anybody is accusing you of being unreasonable, just pointing out that drawing an alternate conclusion from the evidence also has its share of difficulties as well.

 

[Pinball Wizard]

For all of our sakes, I hope that Tom Cruise is never reanimated.

 

[martha]

Just for the record before I go to bed, my scorn is reserved entirely for James Cameron. If it were a filmmaker whose work I could respect, I may have a different opinion of this.

Maybe not, but I'd be less nasty about it.

 

[coemgen]

The main thing about the Lazarus story is that he appeared dead and the Jesus arrived and Lazarus lived again.

The followers of Christ witnessed this and the non-believers saw the resurrected Lazarus live out the rest of his days.

Now, that is powerful and most likely won converts to Jesus teachings.

These are good points to make, deep. The resurrection of Lazarus was powerful. Christ did it to set up his own resurrection (which he prophesized about numerous times). Although it certainly helped people see that he was "the Christ" they'd been waiting for, people still doubted him -- even his own disciples.

One thing that has always bothered me about the Jesus resurrection story versus the Lazarus resurrection story is that while everyone got to see Lazarus live the rest of his life

The resurrected Jesus was of less benefit than Lazarus resurrection

What if Lazarus only appeared to a few of his family members for a few days and then vaporized, would it even be remembered, or the claim believed?

Why did Jesus' resurrection not take as well as Lazarus'?

It did take well, even more so than Lazarus'. It launched the faith. His disciples died for the faith based on this. Otherwise, he was just a dead dude like the next guy. He appeard to hundreds of people, too.

Why didn't Jesus came back from the dead and give a second "Sermon on the Mount" for hundreds to see, like the High Priests, and Herod, and Pilot?
and live the rest of his days. like Lazarus?

Why is the testimony only from people that had something to gain by keeping the Jesus story going?

Again, he appeared to many, many people and performed numerous miracles. In fact, John ends his recording of the Gospel by saying "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

Also, his disciples had nothing to gain by keeping his story going. The only thing they gained was torture and death!

 

[coemgen]

Also, deep, rather than live out his life like Lazarus, Christ left mainly because his work was finished. God did what he had to do for us. Christ kept telling his disciples that he had to leave so the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, could come. This occurs in Acts. Instead of Christ walking among us, he now dwells within those of us who are his followers through the Spirit.

This was done to help spread the news of what God had done for us and it's also the fruit of the work he did on the cross. Because he died for us, if we accept that act of love and grace, he'll dwell within us.

 

[coemgen]

good gosh. we're to take literally an eyewitness account 30 years after the fact as inerrant truth?

That's the point MadelynIris made earlier. The first, or earliest documents on the other great historical figures were written much longer after their death. Yet, they're seen as valid and reliable by scholars. The earliest document on Christ was written so much earlier than any one else that it stands out. Even though we're talking 30 years, compared to everyone else there's a sense of urgency felt.

And yes, 30 years seems like forever. However, you have to keep in mind a few things. Times were different. Entire books were often memorized. That was a regular practice for people, especially with religious texts. The other thing is if there were any challenges to the first recorded Gospel, it was still written within the same generation of those alive during the time of Christ's life it records. If there were objections, they would've been made.

Then there's the fact that there were so many -- we're talking a massive amount -- of copies made of the text almost immediately. It dwarfs the number of copies made for anyone else. Something was going on. Again, there's a sense of urgency.

 

[coemgen]

People flat out do not rise from the dead. It's factual. Defibrillators can help resuscitate someone, or someone might be unconscious for a period of time, or even brain dead for a few minutes with no serious long term effects, but there's no rising from the dead. Miracles really need an agreed upon definition before we even go there. Maybe I am too cynical, hence not getting this God business. These comments by me are not about us in particular, but about how we (people) in general tend to ignore and grab which ever research backs up something we have already put stock in. I'm not saying we are ignorant, but if absolute proof ever came about, one way or the other, would be even believe it then? I'm thinking not.

You're right on, Angela. It's factual -- people just don't rise from the dead. It's absured to think it can happen. You're right in using that logic.
With God though, if he is who he is, he and his ways are not something to be grasped by our minds. If there is a God, and he made you and me and breathed life into us, then raising someone from the dead should be pretty easy. You know? That's the line of logic used when talking about God.
Now, the biggest challenge for us as rational people is accepting that the logic and reality of God can enter our logic and reality.
That's where faith comes in. And even then, I would say faith is a form of logic, too. It's acknowledging "Hey, I know I can't explain and understand it all." For instance, to me, it's logical to say God created the Earth and each of us. The evidence I see for this is that there's way too much purpose behind the way things work, the way things work together and the way creation is enjoyed through beauty and love. For me, to say it all just came together on accident take more faith.

I'll shut up now.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Only shut up if you don't wish to continue. Yours and Speedracer's posts are learning me a fair amount, even if it is simply perspective from another.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

I thought when Jesus went into heaven after the resurrection, I thought it was body and soul and not just soul.

Seriously, how can somebody ascend into heaven by the soul without involving sci-fi type special effects with spooky transparent ghosts escaping out of his mouth and disappearing into the clouds? Or did he just simply say 'im gonna die now but my spirit n stuff will go into heaven I swears it, wot u callin me a liar?'
How does the Bible explain Jesus's ascention into heaven by the SOUL only, I don't understand.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

You're right on, Angela. It's factual -- people just don't rise from the dead. It's absured to think it can happen. You're right in using that logic.
With God though, if he is who he is, he and his ways are not something to be grasped by our minds. If there is a God, and he made you and me and breathed life into us, then raising someone from the dead should be pretty easy. You know? That's the line of logic used when talking about God.
Now, the biggest challenge for us as rational people is accepting that the logic and reality of God can enter our logic and reality.
That's where faith comes in. And even then, I would say faith is a form of logic, too. It's acknowledging "Hey, I know I can't explain and understand it all." For instance, to me, it's logical to say God created the Earth and each of us. The evidence I see for this is that there's way too much purpose behind the way things work, the way things work together and the way creation is enjoyed through beauty and love. For me, to say it all just came together on accident take more faith.

I'll shut up now.

Nice post but I prefer of taking the attitude that there is much more beauty in the world when you take a purely scientific understanding and ignore any theological expanation of the universe.
To say that everything is too complicated and therefore God must have done it, so to speak, just comes across as something that strips down the true beauty of everything and leaves us not asking questions and not investigating the unknown and basically in a state of intellectual submission to a supposed greater God, if that makes sense.
I say this universe is infinitely more interesting when God is out of the picture and our minds are geared to explore and understand the unknown through science.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Jeez so I made a joke about James Cameron-yes that means I am so threatened by what he has to say or anything factual or scientific or whatever. Hey guess what, I'm NOT. I would watch his show and anything else, and sorry to disappoint anyone but it wouldn't matter to my faith. I'm just a stupid, gullible fool who believes in Jesus as love and what he did and represented when he was alive, and no matter what exists or doesn't exist in any sort of tomb isn't going to change that for me one iota. Can't and won't. Hey I went to see the DaVinci Code too, it had no effect on me other than it was a pretty bad movie.

This thread is a jumping off point for certain people here and their well known viewpoints I just can't see it as much more than that, sorry-and think what you want of me as a result. Can't be too concerned about that

 

[BVS]

Weird, even Einstein acknowledged ID. What an idiot.

You have been thuroughly misinformed.

 

[Butterscotch]

There's no way he'll ever prove this. But his movie will be a huge success, because so many churches will picket and plan boycotts it will only draw attention to it among people who ordinarily wouldn't have cared.

 

[A_Wanderer]

That's where faith comes in. And even then, I would say faith is a form of logic, too. It's acknowledging "Hey, I know I can't explain and understand it all." For instance, to me, it's logical to say God created the Earth and each of us. The evidence I see for this is that there's way too much purpose behind the way things work, the way things work together and the way creation is enjoyed through beauty and love. For me, to say it all just came together on accident take more faith.

Accepting that we may never know something isn't cause to abandon reason. There may be a logic to such an attitude but it isn't one needed to understand the physical world.

The problem is that you need meaning; it only exists because it suits us to, from Platonic ideal forms to creation the world has to be put into a way where the life trancends the material.

To view the world and life as a concequence of physical laws not divine will does not require faith; merely to appreciate the existence of space, time, matter and energy; observable and quantifiable elements.

 

[Irvine511]

That's the point MadelynIris made earlier. The first, or earliest documents on the other great historical figures were written much longer after their death. Yet, they're seen as valid and reliable by scholars. The earliest document on Christ was written so much earlier than any one else that it stands out. Even though we're talking 30 years, compared to everyone else there's a sense of urgency felt.

And yes, 30 years seems like forever. However, you have to keep in mind a few things. Times were different. Entire books were often memorized. That was a regular practice for people, especially with religious texts. The other thing is if there were any challenges to the first recorded Gospel, it was still written within the same generation of those alive during the time of Christ's life it records. If there were objections, they would've been made.

Then there's the fact that there were so many -- we're talking a massive amount -- of copies made of the text almost immediately. It dwarfs the number of copies made for anyone else. Something was going on. Again, there's a sense of urgency.

30 years would hardly be admissable in a court of law for eyewitness testimony -- again, the point stands that far, far greater claims are made on the basis of these writings than on the writings of Plato and Aristotle. no one is putting people to death on the basis of what was written in The Republic. it is because of this extraordinary authority people claim the bible gives them -- when it's as suspect as any other historical text -- that both invites rigorous skepticism that ultimately disproves any ability to use the Bible in a literal sense.

 

[coemgen]

Irvine, just because people misinterpret the Bible to fit their own agenda, especially one that goes against the Bible, that doesn't mean the text is unreliable.

 

[coemgen]

Accepting that we may never know something isn't cause to abandon reason. There may be a logic to such an attitude but it isn't one needed to understand the physical world.

The problem is that you need meaning; it only exists because it suits us to, from Platonic ideal forms to creation the world has to be put into a way where the life trancends the material.

To view the world and life as a concequence of physical laws not divine will does not require faith; merely to appreciate the existence of space, time, matter and energy; observable and quantifiable elements.

Who said I abandoned reason? Also, one can apreciate the physical laws and the existence of space, time, matter and energy, and still believe God is behind it all.

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine, just because people misinterpret the Bible to fit their own agenda, especially one that goes against the Bible, that doesn't mean the text is unreliable.

but 2,000 years and a generation gap (30 years) between the events and the reporting of the events renders the text unreliable for any sort of literal reading, especially a literal reading that seeks to make sense of the words in, say, the context of 21st century Colorado Springs, rather than 1st century Jerusalem.

 

[coemgen]

Nice post but I prefer of taking the attitude that there is much more beauty in the world when you take a purely scientific understanding and ignore any theological expanation of the universe.
To say that everything is too complicated and therefore God must have done it, so to speak, just comes across as something that strips down the true beauty of everything and leaves us not asking questions and not investigating the unknown and basically in a state of intellectual submission to a supposed greater God, if that makes sense.
I say this universe is infinitely more interesting when God is out of the picture and our minds are geared to explore and understand the unknown through science.

I don't understand why science and God can't coexist. I tend to see science as evidence of God. It could be seen as the study of his handy work. Also, just because I believe in God doesn't mean I'm for dumbing things down, home-schooling my kids and teaching them to write by drawing in the dirt with sticks either.

 

[coemgen]

but 2,000 years and a generation gap (30 years) between the events and the reporting of the events renders the text unreliable for any sort of literal reading, especially a literal reading that seeks to make sense of the words in, say, the context of 21st century Colorado Springs, rather than 1st century Jerusalem.

I see what you're getting at, and to some degree, you're right. That's why when studying the Bible you have to understand the context and culture in which it was written, who the audience was of the specific book and sometimes even the original language to get the full meaning of a certain word. That doesn't make the Bible unreliable or irrelevant.

And again, having been written in the same generation of those who were alive at the time of Christ makes it more reliable than any historical record of anyone else. If it were recorded in the same amount of time as other documents or even later, then yeah, there should be some concern. However, the fact that it's written much earlier than anyone else says something.

 

[coemgen]

FYI — here's the latest reaction to the documentary.

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Archaeologists and clergymen in the Holy Land derided claims in a new documentary produced by the Oscar-winning director James Cameron that contradict major Christian tenets.
"The Lost Tomb of Christ," which the Discovery Channel will run on March 4, argues that 10 ancient ossuaries -- small caskets used to store bones -- discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem in 1980 may have contained the bones of Jesus and his family, according to a press release issued by the Discovery Channel.
One of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son. And the very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.
Most Christians believe Jesus' body spent three days at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem's Old City. The burial site identified in Cameron's documentary is in a southern Jerusalem neighborhood nowhere near the church.
In 1996, when the BBC aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.
"They just want to get money for it," Kloner said.
The claims have raised the ire of Christian leaders in the Holy Land.
"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."
Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight.
"I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," Pfann said. "But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."
"How possible is it?" Pfann said. "On a scale of one through 10 -- 10 being completely possible -- it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half."
Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun."
Kloner also said the filmmakers' assertions are false.
"It was an ordinary middle-class Jerusalem burial cave," Kloner said. "The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time."
Archaeologists also balk at the filmmaker's claim that the James Ossuary -- the center of a famous antiquities fraud in Israel -- might have originated from the same cave. In 2005, Israel charged five suspects with forgery in connection with the infamous bone box.
"I don't think the James Ossuary came from the same cave," said Dan Bahat, an archaeologist at Bar-Ilan University. "If it were found there, the man who made the forgery would have taken something better. He would have taken Jesus."
Although the documentary makers claim to have found the tomb of Jesus, the British Broadcasting Corporation beat them to the punch by 11 years.
Osnat Goaz, a spokeswoman for the Israeli government agency responsible for archaeology, declined to comment before the documentary was aired.

 

[Irvine511]

I see what you're getting at, and to some degree, you're right. That's why when studying the Bible you have to understand the context and culture in which it was written, who the audience was of the specific book and sometimes even the original language to get the full meaning of a certain word. That doesn't make the Bible unreliable or irrelevant.

And again, having been written in the same generation of those who were alive at the time of Christ makes it more reliable than any historical record of anyone else. If it were recorded in the same amount of time as other documents or even later, then yeah, there should be some concern. However, the fact that it's written much earlier than anyone else says something.

i've never said irrelevant or unreliable, just errant and unsuitable for literal readings. people demand so much from the text, too much, in my mind. and, bluntly, i'm really suspicious of conservative american christian "bible study." there seems as if there's way, way too much of a politicized agenda one's seeking to validate through biblical "study." and i mean that as a generalized comment.

but this is a side discussion, and it's been had before, so i'm going to step back and let the thread continue on the subject.

 

[speedracer]

i've never said irrelevant or unreliable, just errant and unsuitable for literal readings. people demand so much from the text, too much, in my mind. and, bluntly, i'm really suspicious of conservative american christian "bible study." there seems as if there's way, way too much of a politicized agenda one's seeking to validate through biblical "study." and i mean that as a generalized comment.

but this is a side discussion, and it's been had before, so i'm going to step back and let the thread continue on the subject.

Let us also note that there are politicians like Barack Obama who are devout Christians but who also don't seek to codify their every belief into law, saving some of them for private discourse.