Dead Jesus

[Jhony5]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070226-jesus-tomb.html

 

They found Jesus' tomb! Or not?

 

Just curious what the opinions are on this issue. I watched the Discovery Channel presentation of this film the other day, and as much as I like science refuting religion, I wasn't real impressed with the supposed revelation.

 

It was an interesting film, from a historical perspective.

I am almost inclined to believe much of what was asserted in the film, but I won't go either way on it.

[snafu]

I saw that too. It was very interesting and totally plausible. He showed the total combined odds of all the names to be in the same tomb to be 1 in 30,000. I find those compelling odds.

[Phantom]

Meh. I would like someone with a little more knowledge in the field of ancient studies (not filmmakers- WTF!?! sounds like they want this to boost their new project) to verify this. Claims along the lines of disproving Christianity have been around for ages. This is nothing new. Funny though how they are using the statistics to their favor this time. A few years ago before the James ossuary was shown to be a fraud, the skeptics were saying the names Jesus and James were too common for it to necessarily refer to THE Jesus and James- quoting the same kind of odds. Now the odds are "astronomical" to make this seem like proof. Eh, I'm not buying it.

[phreakwars]

I'm not buying it either. Just because it says Jesus, Mary and Joseph on the tombs doesn't mean a thing.

.

.

[snafu]

Meh. I would like someone with a little more knowledge in the field of ancient studies (not filmmakers- WTF!?! sounds like they want this to boost their new project) to verify this. Claims along the lines of disproving Christianity have been around for ages. This is nothing new. Funny though how they are using the statistics to their favor this time. A few years ago before the James ossuary was shown to be a fraud, the skeptics were saying the names Jesus and James were too common for it to necessarily refer to THE Jesus and James- quoting the same kind of odds. Now the odds are "astronomical" to make this seem like proof. Eh, I'm not buying it.

 

 

I don

[builder]

Jesus is pretty common for a name in Mexico, isn't it?

[Phantom]

I don

[Phantom]

Jesus is pretty common for a name in Mexico, isn't it?

 

Jesus is my gardener and Maria is my maid. It's a miracle!

[snafu]

Jesus is my gardener and Maria is my maid. It's a miracle!

 

Jesus is my custodian...............literally and figuratively.

 

 

 

 

Did you watch the documentry? How his brother's name was spelled? His brothers name was not common. The two different ways Mary (as in mother) and Mary (as in Magdolin) where depected. I found it very interesting in deed.

How common would it be to have "Jesus son of Joseph". " Joseph", "Jose" and two Mary's spelled the way they were, ossuaries in the same tomb? No non biblical names? Hmm...

[Msixty]

In my opinion....

 

The Bible (in all it's forms) is a historical record of things that in fact did happen. They were embellished and recorded as the work of god to do three main things.

 

One, to preserve recorded history, you would find record of these things (floods, fires, earthquakes, etc...) in normal documents of the time, BUT the documents would have been destroyed over time, the Bible on the other hand has been preserved and rewritten many times, thus it is the perfect medium for preserving recorded history.

 

Two, to unite people to work to a common goal, religion has been used to pull Europe from the dark ages (although religion arguably was the problem in the first place) it united the barbarians and formed the beginning of France (again, counter-productive, but it's something the Bible motivated people to do)

 

Three, to gain influence on the world through the spread of whatever variation of the Bible you preach from (THEY ARE ALL THE SAME DAMN BOOK PEOPLE, STOP FIGHTING)

 

 

 

Lets look at some examples, the parting of the Red Sea for instance.

 

Historians have found in the reported biblical location of the parting of the Red Sea, the water is extremely shallow, so the parting of the Red Sea could have been as simple as knowing (or waiting for) when an extreme low tide would occur, I've seen low tides in homer that let you walk out where we usually take fishing boats.

 

The flood and Noah's arc.

 

Historians believe that an extreme amount of rain could have fallen in a particular area of the Middle East during the apparent time of Noah, the man could have just built a boat to get his family and farm animals the fuck out of harms way, OR the account could have been symbolic and derived from many farmers moving their livelihood along a flooded river or Vally to reach dry habitable land.

 

Such things would have been very important at the time and could have been passed along and gotten more extreme every time it passed to the next person, eventually reaching a priest that super-embellished it and made it an act-of-god.

 

 

But that's just one guys take on the world.

[Msixty]

Jesus is my custodian...............literally and figuratively.

 

 

 

 

Did you watch the documentry? How his brother's name was spelled? His brothers name was not common. The two different ways Mary (as in mother) and Mary (as in Magdolin) where depected. I found it very interesting in deed.

 

I too found the brothers name interesting, it is all but non existent then and today.

 

But nobody of the faith will ever accept it even if we do find the real tomb, it's a religion, millions of armed warriors couldn't do shit, two archaeologists/film makers won't make a dent in the 'holy armor' of the faith.

[builder]

Jesus is my gardener and Maria is my maid. It's a miracle!

 

The Saints be praised.

 

Phanny, you being a religious researcher and all, can you tell me what it means when people shout, (usually after hitting their thumb with a hammer) Jesus H Keeeeeeerist?

 

What does the H stand for?

 

Harold? Horrice? I don't know.

[phreakwars]

HORUS, like the egyptian god he was copied from or is.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

 

Or, you can take the other explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H_Christ

.

.

[builder]

HORUS, like the egyptian god he was copied from or is.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

 

Or, you can take the other explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H_Christ

.

.

 

So it's Jesus Horus Christ?

 

Interesting.

 

So tell me phreakwars, if the egyptian god is the birth of modern religion, how come we don't genuflect to Horus?

[Phantom]

HORUS, like the egyptian god he was copied from or is.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

 

Wrong. As shown here. Scroll down to Horus as several of the alleged "originals" of the Copy-cat myth are debunked on that same page. I haven't updated that site in ages but just browsing over the Horus section should suffice. Sorry it isn't user friendly. Never figured out how to do the cordinate-link thingy. :o

 

The Jesus-Horus Christ myth has been debunked so many times it is embarassing to those who still refer to it. Even Wiki has it wrong as that relief they show on their page has been badly cited by "experts" like Acharya and Massey. The relief shows neither a virgin birth or "nativity scene." It's utter bull shit.

 

Or, you can take the other explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H_Christ

 

hehe. I was going to guess "Heli." Jesus' grandfather in the new testament. It could be!

[RoyalOrleans]

I always thought the "H" in Jesus H. Christ stood for "Howard".

 

As in who art in heaven.

[Jhony5]

It wouldn't disprove anything. Even if the tomb/ossuaries were authenticated by qualified scientists Christianity wouldn't be disproved. We would just use the same arguments the skeptics used back when the James ossuary was first "discovered." And that is, the names are too popular for that time period and there is no DNA sample to compare the remains to in order to match it to anyone.

 

Part of what makes the probability factor go up in this case is the unusual spelling of Mary's name as 'Mariamne' Located on the ossuary. An unusual name in those times, as well this is how Mary's name is shown in the bible. The probability of this being the tomb of Jesus' family was shown as 1/600 during the film. However they did say this was an extremely conservative figure. They added plenty of room for variables. Using the figure of 1/600, it would mean that 1 out of every 600 families would have a burial tomb just like this, EXACTLY.

 

However other Archaeologist that had nothing to do with the making of this film stated that Jerusalem wasn't heavily populated and the odds of this exact scenario to occur was closer to 1/1,000,000. More than the population of Jerusalem at the time. It is very plausible that this is the tomb of Jesus, I won't go so far as to say its probable.

 

What I find very telling as to the Christian take of this is, no matter what, the Christian community will not even attempt to think not for a second no matter what, that Jesus' remains were buried. Because of their faith, they disqualify themselves as to having a valid opinion on this subject. ANYTHING they have to say on it is null and void, because of their faith. Nowhere in science is a biased opinion worth anything or even considered, nor should it be in this case either.

 

Throughout history Christianity has stood in the way of a better understanding of science and history. In the tenth century it was considered heresy to believe that the world was round as opposed to flat, as it was stated in genesis.

What we see here is much the same with one exception, we cannot unequivocally proof either side of it. We can prove the earth is round, we cannot prove a specific human being was either buried or resurrected in whole, over 2000 years ago. It cannot be done.

 

All that being said, if there was a way to prove these filmmakers/archaeologist correct, Christianity would just fall back on its well utilized excuse that the bible was mistranslated. Which has been common practice explaining other idiosyncrasies. The great flood (Never happened), Noah's Ark (an obvious tale of lore), Adam & Eve (fairy tale fodder), all written off by Christian scientist as either mistranslated, or misunderstood because certain information was excluded in the biblical accounts of these events.

 

As too the issue of the filmmakers and the archaeologist that "discovered" the tomb. It is being said that these guys have an agenda and their findings are just an attempt to spit at the church. I disagree. Whatever affect this film has on you personally, what they did was research a historical event, that subsequently questions a specific faith. Of course a devout Christian isn't going to devote his time to trying to find something that would go against his personal faith, thus ostracizing him from his religion. The only people one would expect to pursue this, are non-Christians.

 

Whether or not Jesus was really the son of god, or whether or not he was resurrected in whole, Jesus as a person had a profound affect on our world, and this is still true today. In the centuries that followed his death, his name was used by the church in a manner that would have infuriated him. The power, the conquering, the murder that took place in his name would have certainly upset him greatly.

[phreakwars]

So it's Jesus Horus Christ?

 

Interesting.

 

So tell me phreakwars, if the egyptian god is the birth of modern religion, how come we don't genuflect to Horus?

Because I think people make too many assumptions about history to realize a few things.

 

When many similarities can be found in a story that is that old, you can't assume it is the same individual, but you can assume the original story was passed down to many cultures.

 

People also assume that the people who lived in those times, could READ !!

 

Think about this: What CAN be proven ??

 

The ability to read and write was something only shared by few, These ones that knew how to read and write passed the story they learned onto others by creating these awesome story tablets of greatness of a God or a messiah. I think the way the acts of greatness were explained reflect more of an artistic exaggeration to actual events, and in some cases, can be stories carried down from travels in another location.

 

Another thing we can prove..or rather disprove.... miracles...

 

Anybody ever hear of any documented healing or bread breaking to feed the masses, or whatever ??

 

I think these alleged "healing and miracles" are symbolic of both Jesus and Horus.

 

The similarities that can be shown in them are far too close to being the same story.

 

You can look at things like floods and such and contribute them to nature, but there are other things you can't and you must contribute them to symbolism..

 

Fasting for example... fasting could mean that the persons crops were poor, and they had to rely on liquids until food could be found.

 

Fasting for god, could easily translate to starving because of natures natural weather pattern and crop season.

 

What CAN'T be proven, is who actually was Jesus. If you don't have a DNA reference, you can't identify a skeleton no matter how many people claim to know who it is.

 

So no matter what, you will always have your doubters.

 

If it was proven however, then Jesus would prove to just be a simple human.

 

A reality that probably is true.

 

Jesus .vs Horus might sound like an odd theory, but as it goes, you can't disprove that either.

.

.

[Phantom]

I won't be on much for the next week so I will do my best to keep up now.

 

Part of what makes the probability factor go up in this case is the unusual spelling of Mary's name as 'Mariamne' Located on the ossuary. An unusual name in those times, as well this is how Mary's name is shown in the bible. The probability of this being the tomb of Jesus' family was shown as 1/600 during the film. However they did say this was an extremely conservative figure. They added plenty of room for variables. Using the figure of 1/600, it would mean that 1 out of every 600 families would have a burial tomb just like this, EXACTLY.

 

I wish I had seen this documentary but unforntunately missed it. I can't understand how they claim Mariamne was an unusual/rare name in first centry AD Israel. It was pretty common. References are found several times in the Hebrew Talmud (an example off the top of my head) and quite a few other places. It might not have been as common as our modern day "Jennifer" but definitely not "rare" by any means. Furthermore (since I missed the documentary), Mariamne is only one of two ways I know how to spell the name. Exactly what is so fantastic about this spelling they are trying to make an issue out of isn't getting through to me.

 

However other Archaeologist that had nothing to do with the making of this film stated that Jerusalem wasn't heavily populated and the odds of this exact scenario to occur was closer to 1/1,000,000. More than the population of Jerusalem at the time.

 

Aroo? Where on earth did they get their sources? Jerusalem was THE hub of the ancient Hebrew world. It was their "Mecca," the city all Hebrews migrated too for Holy Days. It was the most populated Hebrew city. It was a centerpoint/median for ancient traderoutes from Europe to the Far East. What are these archaelogists smoking?

 

It is very plausible that this is the tomb of Jesus, I won't go so far as to say its probable.

 

Is it possible? Sure! I can't say with 100% confidence it is. Probable? No, but I can't say with 100% confidence it isn't.

 

What I find very telling as to the Christian take of this is, no matter what, the Christian community will not even attempt to think not for a second no matter what, that Jesus' remains were buried.

 

Not so. The core element of our faith is the resurrection. In order for that to happen, He would need to be burried.

 

Just kidding. I know what you mean. There actually is a tomb (can't remember the name on it but I promise you there is some mention of it at least once a week on the History channel lol) that is believed to be Jesus' by some. It isn't likely in my opinion that it is THE tomb but no one asked me.

 

Because of their faith, they disqualify themselves as to having a valid opinion on this subject. ANYTHING they have to say on it is null and void, because of their faith. Nowhere in science is a biased opinion worth anything or even considered, nor should it be in this case either.

 

Some do, sure. But blind faith is becoming somewhat obsolete (although not entirely, obviously). People are now asking for facts, evidence, and proof. They want to know WHY. This is where the study of apologetics comes into play. On the other hand, we could turn the tables and say that no proof is enough for the skeptics. If there were absolute PROOF Christianity was a hoax then I am sure we would be a lot more interested. But statistics and assertions from a film maker isn't proof. This subject needs further investigation.

 

Also- faith. Yes, faith. What kind of Christians would any of us be if we threw in the towel every time an obstacle was tossed our way? Biblical contradictions, as one example. When I first encountered biblical contradictions I remember thinking, "Oh shit." But they all had a logical explanation. The Pagan Copy Cat theory was another "Oh shit" obstacle that turned out to be bogus.

 

The skeptics didn't swallow the James Ossuary without asking questions so Christians shouldn't be accused of being hard headed because we have questions over this.

 

I'll stop there. I need to get going but we can continue later. You're always a worth opponent. Sorry to only get halfway through your comment.

[Phantom]

And just to show that things are not always as they appear to be, here are some refutations about the actual documentary. JP Holding in progress:

 

1) As McCane's study has shown us, Jesus would never have been permitted to have been buried honorably with his family (being a crucifixion victim- a criminal's death).

 

2) The ossuaries in question were found in Jerusalem area. Beg pardon, but have they forgotten that Jesus' family was from Galilee?

 

3) The names in question were outrageously common: Mary was the name of a fourth to a third of all Jewish women. Joseph and Jesus were Top Ten names. Apparently the people happy about this have forgotten how this was used as an argument against the "James ossuary". (Claims of statistical analysis based on ossuary inscriptions alone won't do anything to increase the odds....since the vast majority of people would have been too poor to have ossuaries.)

 

Those were just the outstanding inconsistencies/facts in brief. If you want articles that rip this little jolly apart bit by bit, try THIS.

 

And THIS.

 

And THIS.

 

Instead of believing everything we hear, it is always nice to hear the counter-version. Over and out.

[hugo]

People tend to view long odds incorrectly. The fact is that things happen to us everyday that defy the odds. Think about your own life. What would the odds have been that your father and mother met and produced children and then their respective parents and on and on and on.... Of course at the moment of your conception your sperm had to beat out millions of others to fertilize the egg.

[Jhony5]

To be honest, I didn't see a single thing in those links that wasn't mentioned in the film. The film nor the filmmakers never once said that they found the tomb of Jesus, only that they might have, and they cited the reasons why they might have. They make a huge point out of the fact that Joseph, James, Jesus and Mary are all common names. However you break it down statistically, one cannot say that the odds of this exact matching of names isn't peculiar.

 

Discoveries like this have to be explored. Its the Christians that have wholeheartedly blown this thing off, and it is they who are guilty of ignoring facts. Fact is, its a situation that is enough coincidence to be explored. Which is all this film is, a historical exploration of Jesus. To react to this film as if it is an attack on Christianity, which is exactly how many are acting, is ridiculous to say the least. Whats more ridiculous is the reason Christians feel attacked by this film is because they believe a man 2000 years ago magically came back to life then ascended into heaven, taking his body with him. Now, who's being ridiculous here? The people that are exploring a tomb, or the people that believe in magic?

[Msixty]

1) As McCane's study has shown us, Jesus would never have been permitted to have been buried honorably with his family (being a crucifixion victim- a criminal's death)..

 

aaaand there is no such thing as grave robbers? he had a following, ever think they did him one final honor? maybe the 'resurrection' of Jesus was just the story of his remains being rescued and re-buried.

 

2) The ossuaries in question were found in Jerusalem area. Beg pardon, but have they forgotten that Jesus' family was from Galilee? .

 

I'm from Oregon, i live in Alaska, I might die on another Continent. his dad never went to Jerusalem, they point out that he was not in the tomb in the documentary, they said that that lends more credibility to the theory, also, they have some evidence that his family (mainly his mother) was in and may have dies in Jerusalem.

 

3) The names in question were outrageously common: Mary was the name of a fourth to a third of all Jewish women. Joseph and Jesus were Top Ten names. Apparently the people happy about this have forgotten how this was used as an argument against the "James ossuary". (Claims of statistical analysis based on ossuary inscriptions alone won't do anything to increase the odds....since the vast majority of people would have been too poor to have ossuaries.) .

 

Actually, that was pointed out in the show, BUT they also pointed out that the spelling of the names is what made them unique, the brother had a VERY rare nickname, and his mothers name was spelled a bit off from the usual method, and the vast majority of people were too poor, BUT JESUS HAD A FOLLOWING! if they would die for him, you can damn well bet they'd dig a cave for him.

 

Instead of believing everything we hear, it is always nice to hear the counter-version.

 

yes, it is, but for some reason people of faith don't think so, in fact, they have cut, slashed, burned alive, buried, tortured, and generally mass murdered people for offering the 'counter-version'

 

so fucking much for 'freedom IN religion'

[hugo]

yes, it is, but for some reason people of faith don't think so, in fact, they have cut, slashed, burned alive, buried, tortured, and generally mass murdered people for offering the 'counter-version'

 

 

 

As though people of unfaith have not. The greatest crimes of the 20th Century were instigated by those who wanted to substitute worship of the state for worship of God.

[Msixty]

As though people of unfaith have not. The greatest crimes of the 20th Century were instigated by those who wanted to substitute worship of the state for worship of God.

 

and that just makes what the church did in the name of Christ go away right?

 

since people that are not of the faith did bad things we can ignore what untold horrors religion set upon this world?