stunning new archeological evidence on Jesus' life

[batchusa]

This article explains a lot of the actual "evidence":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/

 

[elektrolokomotive]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

possibly from one of the shards of the "true cross" that floats around the reliquaries of the world. problem is...added together, all fo the shards of the "true cross" will give you ~42 crosses. Which one do you pick

Where did you come up with that statistic?

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
James Cameron...seriously...why are we even talking about this?

Gives the haters a chance to crap on religion.... again.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: sixone
Funny how so many people who need proof to believe in God will never question this report. :roll:

wow, talk about an incorrect, baseless, and judgemental statement.
typical

reality is that even if you could prove that an organized religion is wrong, there would still be blind believers

That's because the blind believers don't believe in the organized religions, but in the faiths themselves.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: batchusa
This article explains a lot of the actual "evidence":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/

I'm gonna have to say that this Jacobovici guy is not very credible if he still believes that the Golan/James ossuary is authentic and bases this new conclusion on that (even if only in part). The James ossuary has been scientifically declared a fake and Golan is currently on trial for forgery.

I mean, really, people... don't get your science and your history from the movies and the media. You have the leading scientific authority in that particular field, the former curator for anthropology and archeology at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, on the record saying that this claim is bunk and that the claimant has (and I quote) "no credibility whatsoever," and you're still buying this... why? Surely not from the standpoint of science, that's for sure.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: bignateyk
I dont get it.. how does this "evidence" in any way disprove the claim that jesus was resurrected?

lol, interesting point. At best it could only prove he didn't ascend (or if he did, he came back).

Fern

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Even if it all turned out to be true, Christians would refuse to believe it. Religious people never, ever let facts get in the way of dogma.

examples? and please, anything other than evolution.

They only accepted that the world was round when reality beat the piss out of them, not to mention the universe revolving around us...etc.

You could come up with rock solid evidence that Jesus was nothing more than a normal preacher and that the Bible was nothing more than an elaborate book of fables and fanatics would dismiss that evidence as BS. Why? Because faith doesn't rely on reality, it relies on personal choice to believe something which cannot be proven or disproven by reality.

The entire world believed it was flat and at the center of the universe. It wasn't just Christians.

And that was only in the Dark Ages. The flat earth was not a popular thought preceding this. The flat earth was one of the many superstitious traits that flourished in the Dark Ages.

 

[randay]

its true!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Even if it all turned out to be true, Christians would refuse to believe it. Religious people never, ever let facts get in the way of dogma.

examples? and please, anything other than evolution.

They only accepted that the world was round when reality beat the piss out of them, not to mention the universe revolving around us...etc.

You could come up with rock solid evidence that Jesus was nothing more than a normal preacher and that the Bible was nothing more than an elaborate book of fables and fanatics would dismiss that evidence as BS. Why? Because faith doesn't rely on reality, it relies on personal choice to believe something which cannot be proven or disproven by reality.

The entire world believed it was flat and at the center of the universe. It wasn't just Christians.

And that was only in the Dark Ages. The flat earth was not a popular thought preceding this. The flat earth was one of the many superstitious traits that flourished in the Dark Ages.

This has already been addressed in this thread. If there is any myth, it is that many people today think that people in the past believed in a flat earth.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Even if it all turned out to be true, Christians would refuse to believe it. Religious people never, ever let facts get in the way of dogma.

examples? and please, anything other than evolution.

They only accepted that the world was round when reality beat the piss out of them, not to mention the universe revolving around us...etc.

You could come up with rock solid evidence that Jesus was nothing more than a normal preacher and that the Bible was nothing more than an elaborate book of fables and fanatics would dismiss that evidence as BS. Why? Because faith doesn't rely on reality, it relies on personal choice to believe something which cannot be proven or disproven by reality.

That makes no sense. The Bible confirms the shape of the world, see Isaiah. So any religious person making such a claim doesn't make it using the Bible. "Christians" didn't exist until more than 250 years after Greek scientist had determined the Earth's circumference. So that makes absolutely no sense.

Plus, if they believed the world was flat, how in the world did the flood happen? A flat Earth can't flood, the water just spills over.

 

[miniMUNCH]

LOL @ OP.

Kinda hard to get DNA evidence from a body that "ascended to heaven".

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't know why the public lets Hollywood re-write history for them. Good drama maybe, but never accurate.
Take Tombstone, for example. Great movie. But not even remotely accurate.
Or Oliver Stone's JFK. What a joke! Even the portrayal of Garrison was inaccurate, and that particular conspiracy theory (there are many about JFK, but Garrison's particular theory) was thoroughly discredited long before the movie even came out.
And so on... countless fabrications of history passed off as the real thing.
And yet more people get their history from Hollywood movies than from history books. It's becoming a national disgrace.

Absotutely. It baffles me that people have treated the theory resurrected in JFK as Dogma. Oliver Stone is a terrible filmmaker, IMO. Not for his ability to make films, but because he presents his dramas as fact, when they are largely based on crackpot revisionist history.

Tombstone is so far from the truth that it's laughable. Fun movie to watch though

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Even if it all turned out to be true, Christians would refuse to believe it. Religious people never, ever let facts get in the way of dogma.

examples? and please, anything other than evolution.

They only accepted that the world was round when reality beat the piss out of them, not to mention the universe revolving around us...etc.

You could come up with rock solid evidence that Jesus was nothing more than a normal preacher and that the Bible was nothing more than an elaborate book of fables and fanatics would dismiss that evidence as BS. Why? Because faith doesn't rely on reality, it relies on personal choice to believe something which cannot be proven or disproven by reality.

That makes no sense. The Bible confirms the shape of the world, see Isaiah. So any religious person making such a claim doesn't make it using the Bible. "Christians" didn't exist until more than 250 years after Greek scientist had determined the Earth's circumference. So that makes absolutely no sense.

Plus, if they believed the world was flat, how in the world did the flood happen? A flat Earth can't flood, the water just spills over.

how the hell does a sphere flood on the outside? gravity was not discovered then....

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Even if it all turned out to be true, Christians would refuse to believe it. Religious people never, ever let facts get in the way of dogma.

examples? and please, anything other than evolution.

They only accepted that the world was round when reality beat the piss out of them, not to mention the universe revolving around us...etc.

You could come up with rock solid evidence that Jesus was nothing more than a normal preacher and that the Bible was nothing more than an elaborate book of fables and fanatics would dismiss that evidence as BS. Why? Because faith doesn't rely on reality, it relies on personal choice to believe something which cannot be proven or disproven by reality.

That makes no sense. The Bible confirms the shape of the world, see Isaiah. So any religious person making such a claim doesn't make it using the Bible. "Christians" didn't exist until more than 250 years after Greek scientist had determined the Earth's circumference. So that makes absolutely no sense.

Plus, if they believed the world was flat, how in the world did the flood happen? A flat Earth can't flood, the water just spills over.

Yes, I don't why this keeps coming up. Until Galileo, the Catholic church dogma was that of the Aristotlean model, i.e. a spherical earth and a geocentric universe with the 4 elements on earth and the "divine fifth element" of the ether than "held up" the stars and planets. The problem with the acceptance of the heliocentric model was that, until Newton, no one understood the concept of gravity, so without a geocentric model no one could explain what "held up" the astronomical bodies in space. Hell, up until Einstein just 100 years ago, scientists still thought that gravity was somehow electro-magnetic (or operated through "attraction" of some form).
Forget the Bible with the "circle of the earth" (in Isaiah) and the flood, etc. Everybody in the ancient world knew that the earth was round. The horoscopes and astrology of the ancient Mesopotamians 5,000 years ago depending on it. The builders of Stronehenge knew it. The Egyptians knew it when they built their pyramids. The Mayans in many ways knew more about the universe than modern scientists know today. There were debates about the exact circumference of the earth true (although one Greek scientist in 200 BC did calculate it more or less correctly) or whether the earth was spherical or cylindrical, but round? They knew it was round. Except for maybe a few extremely primitive cultures.
I've been trying to figure out where the whole people-until-the-modern-times-thought-the-earth-was-flat myth came from, or why so many believe it, and the best I've come up with is the false evidence of the conflict thesis presented by Draper in the 1870s and the false account of Columbus proving the earth was round in a book by Washington Irving. However, the most compelling case IMO is that modern cities are so light-polluted that people can't see the night sky, whereas people just a 100 or so years ago could see it clearly (and in most cases, lived their lives by the stars). Leave the cities, go camping for a couple of nights, study the night sky, and then come back and tell me that you really still believe that people used to think the earth was flat.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: elektrolokomotive

Originally posted by: zinfamous

possibly from one of the shards of the "true cross" that floats around the reliquaries of the world. problem is...added together, all fo the shards of the "true cross" will give you ~42 crosses. Which one do you pick

Where did you come up with that statistic?

Oh, I thought it was common knowledge among those that have visited at least 1 cathedral with such a reliquarie. Especially those in various European countries. Perhaps 42 crosses is a bit of an exageration. It may be closer to 30. Anyway, it's not a statistic; it's a number

 

[ElFenix]

the heliocentric model disproved God's most easily observed use of power: the motion of the stars through the sky. to the medieval physicist, motion required the constant application of force. and the only force that could move the stars was God. therefore, God must be moving the stars.

yes, they had trouble with arrows and spears, but explained that the vortex left by the arrow in it's passing must push on the arrow when it fills.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
I mean, really, people... don't get your science and your history from the movies and the media. You have the leading scientific authority in that particular field, the former curator for anthropology and archeology at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, on the record saying that this claim is bunk and that the claimant has (and I quote) "no credibility whatsoever," and you're still buying this... why? Surely not from the standpoint of science, that's for sure.

Because the people that spend their time demonizing those with faith have a faith of their own. They just refuse to admit that their faith in no faith is as strong as a religous person's faith in God.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the heliocentric model disproved God's most easily observed use of power: the motion of the stars through the sky. to the medieval physicist, motion required the constant application of force. and the only force that could move the stars was God. therefore, God must be moving the stars.

yes, they had trouble with arrows and spears, but explained that the vortex left by the arrow in it's passing must push on the arrow when it fills.

Actually, Aquinas' 'proofs of God' contradict what you have said here and still agree with modern theories. He stated that God was the first force that set the universe in motion, the 'initial mover' argument I believe it's called. Given that there was, at some point, a big ball of energy, the application of some force would still have to be applied to cause it to 'bang' (i.e. to force it out of its equilibrium that it maintained prior to the Big Bang). This leaves the problem of where the big ball of energy came from alone, which is interesting since quantum mechanics allows for the spontaneous creation of such an energy singularity (despite the fact that one has never been observed).

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Perhaps this has already been covered and I missed it, but is there some reason for the idea that he wasn't resurrected, or is that just something they're adding in there? I don't see what his having a wife or a child would have to do with that.

Please let me know if this question was already raised.

I guess they're trying to say that since here is a body, he can't have been resurrected and ascended to heaven (the Ascension) in said body. That's my guess.

Why would a body disprove that? I always just assumed he was resurrected, then when he ascended, his body was left behind, and reburied. Why take the body along for the ride?

Because the Catholic church believes that Jesus and Mary are the only two people to have ascended into heaven with their corporeal body, rather than just the spirit. At least that's how the story goes. Protestants and others don't believe in the divinity of Mary so they're probably indifferent to this aspect of the article claiming to have found her tomb.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the heliocentric model disproved God's most easily observed use of power: the motion of the stars through the sky. to the medieval physicist, motion required the constant application of force. and the only force that could move the stars was God. therefore, God must be moving the stars.

yes, they had trouble with arrows and spears, but explained that the vortex left by the arrow in it's passing must push on the arrow when it fills.

Actually, Aquinas' 'proofs of God' contradict what you have said here and still agree with modern theories. He stated that God was the first force that set the universe in motion, the 'initial mover' argument I believe it's called. Given that there was, at some point, a big ball of energy, the application of some force would still have to be applied to cause it to 'bang' (i.e. to force it out of its equilibrium that it maintained prior to the Big Bang). This leaves the problem of where the big ball of energy came from alone, which is interesting since quantum mechanics allows for the spontaneous creation of such an energy singularity (despite the fact that one has never been observed).

It's called the "prime mover," "first mover," or "first cause." Aquinas expanded upon the idea from Aristotle. The Catholic church believes that the Big Bang is this first cause (and one of their own was the first to formulate the concept of the Big Bang BTW).

Modern science no longer believes a "first cause" was necessary. Time began with the Big Bang, therefore nothing needs to have existed prior to (because there was no "prior to").

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Triumph
Because the Catholic church believes that Jesus and Mary are the only two people to have ascended into heaven with their corporeal body, rather than just the spirit. At least that's how the story goes. Protestants and others don't believe in the divinity of Mary so they're probably indifferent to this aspect of the article claiming to have found her tomb.

Catholics do not believe that Mary is divine. Of course, that doesn't stop protestant ministers from teaching that as a way to make the Catholic Church look bad.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
Modern science no longer believes a "first cause" was necessary. Time began with the Big Bang, therefore nothing needs to have existed prior to (because there was no "prior to").

Yes, but this is a specious argument. What happened before/during the Big Bang is beyond the realm of science, at least at this point, because we have no way to observe what happened before. It's a purely philosophical question.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Vic
Modern science no longer believes a "first cause" was necessary. Time began with the Big Bang, therefore nothing needs to have existed prior to (because there was no "prior to").

Yes, but this is a specious argument. What happened before/during the Big Bang is beyond the realm of science, at least at this point, because we have no way to observe what happened before. It's a purely philosophical question.

Well, I won't argue. It'd be like asking, what was existence like before existence existed? Or... what happened before time? Or... what were my thoughts before I was born? There is no answer. OTOH, one has to ask, is an answer required? Perhaps... there really isn't one.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
Well, I won't argue. It'd be like asking, what was existence like before existence existed? Or... what happened before time? Or... what were my thoughts before I was born? There is no answer. OTOH, one has to ask, is an answer required? Perhaps... there really isn't one.

No question requires an answer, but some are still worth answering. I spend my days answering questions of science and sleepless nights answering questions of philosophy. Sometimes the science creeps into the nights, which is generally why i can't sleep in the first place.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I always find it amusing the lengths people will go to disprove the Bible. Any rational person who has read enough of the Bible can easily discern that it is not a book that can be taken literally and factually. The entire basis for modern Christian religions is so far fetched and beyond the realm of possibility for any rational thinker that it is, IMHO, pointless to argue the validity of it.

There are bigger fish to fry in this world. If someone wants to believe a man existed thousands of years ago that walked on water, turned water into wine, healed the crippled, etc. then so be it.