Thread: The Lost Tomb Of Jesus

Jesus was a popular name, Joseph was a popular name, Judah was a popular name. It is statistically probable that this is the tomb of someone totally unrelated.

Originally Posted by Seeker

Jesus was a popular name, Joseph was a popular name, Judah was a popular name. It is statistically probable that this is the tomb of someone totally unrelated.
[/b]

The probability of the names that were found to be together was calculated to be 600 to 1.

When the creator of the documentary said something like 'I have never doubted jesus lived, only now we have found evidence to support this FACT' I gave the story a 5% chance to be true.

It is ridiculous to assume something like that beforehand, and then find evidence to support something you already 'know for sure'. I agree that one should not pose one's beliefs as truths.

Also, a bunch of historians just raped the theory that it is Jesus his grave. Jesus his family was poor and didn't even live in Jerusalem.
[/b]

Firstly, as I said before, ad populum arguments hold no grounds for evidence or argumentative leverage. The fact is - there are many historians that do it was Jesus' grave. Thus, saying something like, "All historians do not believe it is Jesus' grave" would be false and saying "A bunch of historians believe that it is not Jesus' grave" holds no leverage or relevance.

On the other hand, I agree - I speculated the truth of the Tomb when I heard that it was found in Jerusalem. Also, the researches fully admit to the fact that they are using inferential research to point it to Jesus. Consider that the evidence is trying to reach over 2000 years to pin-point an exact individual. I believe that if Jesus did exist (since there seems now to be consensus that there is no empirical evidence to prove his existance.. yet) that he would be an individual whom would have a plethora of physical means to trace to. Considering how prestigious he was/is - why could there not be many ways to trace to him? However, it is still inferential and inductive which is shun upon in our logical age.

What I do not understand is this very basis:
If you are theist - why argue the possibility that there may be proof of your prophet?
If you are atheist - why argue the existance of Jesus? It does not disprove atheism and to argue the methods would be non-sequitor to the commonly held atheistic belief that empiricism is predominant over reason and faith.

Of course, it would also necessitate that if this was Jesus, he had children and a family. I think we can all agree that it would be exhaustive to debate over the existance and relations of Jesus to these other supposed individuals.

However, let us say for a moment, hypothetically, that there was concrete, undebated proof that Jesus had a child and a wife. What would this mean for theists? From what I understand - sex loses its derogatory connotation.

It is really odd to see how resistant people are to change - even when the changes are completely mundane (for example - try changing the toilet paper so it comes out from behind rather than the front - you might be suprised how pissed off people get).

I am not theist, but I am also not atheist. However, if I considered myself a theist, I would not feel threatened or feel my beliefs were in question - in fact, I would feel that only now there is empirical evidence for my belief and now the empiricists should shut their mouths about Jesus' questioned existance.

Are my points fair..?

~

Originally Posted by O

The probability of the names that were found to be together was calculated to be 600 to 1.[/b]

In how many tombs that have been found? I don't know how many have actually been found, but I figure 600 to 1 isn't all that unlikely.

There is no empirical evidence of Jesus' existence, but there is quite a bit of historical evidence, which makes sense since he was in the past.

About the tomb, I am skeptical, but I will not particularly care if I am proven wrong. Question, though - why does that tomb force him to have been married?

If Jesus was definitely married, sex doesn't lose any of its connotations (at least for my denomination) because we believe sex is right with your wife and wrong otherwise. But I would worry that Jesus was wasting his time, because a family takes a lot of time and Jesus had better things to do.

Originally Posted by O

The probability of the names that were found to be together was calculated to be 600 to 1. [/b]

Isn't a statistic like that completely meaningless? The probability of finding any set of names together will be the same. The important part of this discovery would be if it lined up with the details we have on Jesus. Which, as far as I can tell, they don't.

How is it valid to use archaeological evidence to prove a character in a story that the same evidence invalidates?