Thread: The Lost Tomb Of Jesus

Hello all,

In a controversial uproar, the media has been convulsing in a mouth-foaming frenzy to provoke yet another Jesus conspiracy debauchery. Will we be able to properly discern the evidence propounded by this archeologist without his name incidentally being smeared with a pejorative overtone by religious zealots? Can we resist our primal nature to tear at each others necks and let the postulations come without circumspection? I have severe doubts that this study will be able to be properly analyzed by those with the perspecacity and sincere interest without being exaperated by evangelists. This will likely end up analguous to the Da Vinci Code but since the movie reaped the fads prime revenue and interest, it is likely that this will be seen as merely a tentative interest for the morning paper.

That is right everyone - I want to hear some concentrated empirical evidence tracing back to Jesus. However, considering it took them so long to fund the research (likely due to apprehension of scientists to reach empricial venues to tracing Jesus for fear of being murdered by peace-preaching-fanatics that cannot accept change) that I wonder if this will truly be able to launch properly and postulate its evidence without being circumscribed as "circumstantial" by zealots.

The low down:
- Guy found a tomb (in 1980&#33
- Another guy given money to analyze the tomb
- Evidence shows inferential traces to Jesus.

Links: (Both Discovery Channel)
"Discovery Channel's The Lost Tomb of Jesus Reveals New Scientific Evidence Supporting Possible Find of Jesus Family Tomb":
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories....3934&EDATE=

The Lost Tomb of Jesus:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html

Christians be advised - there is a possibility that you may have to reconsider mundane aspects of your religion - try not to kill anyone.

(I apologise for my slightly hostile tone - it irritates me that scientific research can not be conducted for fear of their life.)

~

This whole movie is just a way to get money. There was a show made about this back in the 80s, and it proved nothing. Jesus Rising from the dead is more than just a "black and white" meaning. There is no way to prove that the bones in there are from him, because there is no known relative of him alive to compare the DNA to. These people get away with bashing Jesus just because Christians do not get violent like.....Muslims over that cartoon about Muhammad. Jesus was a common name at that time, and there is absolutely NO way to prove this was really his grave, and he in fact did not rise. I have no need to change my religion, because even if Jesus did not rise (even though he did), God still does exist.


Every news station said how bullshit this show is going to be, and it really is not anything to worry about...there is NO proof backing it.

-Rob

Originally Posted by magicrules22311

This whole movie is just a way to get money. There was a show made about this back in the 80s, and it proved nothing. Jesus Rising from the dead is more than just a "black and white" meaning. There is no way to prove that the bones in there are from him, because there is no known relative of him alive to compare the DNA to. These people get away with bashing Jesus just because Christians do not get violent like.....Muslims over that cartoon about Muhammad. Jesus was a common name at that time, and there is absolutely NO way to prove this was really his grave, and he in fact did not rise. I have no need to change my religion, because even if Jesus did not rise (even though he did), God still does exist.
Every news station said how bullshit this show is going to be, and it really is not anything to worry about...there is NO proof backing it.

-Rob
[/b]

Now, lets not get into this argument, but you can't pass beliefs off as fact.

Second, this is very interesting. I'll give it a better look when I have more time. But, for now I'm moving this to the Religion Forum for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by magicrules22311

This whole movie is just a way to get money. There was a show made about this back in the 80s, and it proved nothing. Jesus Rising from the dead is more than just a "black and white" meaning. There is no way to prove that the bones in there are from him, because there is no known relative of him alive to compare the DNA to. These people get away with bashing Jesus just because Christians do not get violent like.....Muslims over that cartoon about Muhammad. Jesus was a common name at that time, and there is absolutely NO way to prove this was really his grave, and he in fact did not rise. I have no need to change my religion, because even if Jesus did not rise (even though he did), God still does exist.
Every news station said how bullshit this show is going to be, and it really is not anything to worry about...there is NO proof backing it.
[/b]

This is what I mean. The show has not even aired yet and already people are presuming that there is no evidence and that it is apparently impossible for them to have any empirical evidence. Would you consider that these assumptions are fairly presumptious?

I fairly consider that this man is likely wanting to be famous - who is not? Consider that he is also sharing the expedition with a tremendous amount of other people dating back to 1980.

Further, why does finding his tomb apparently impugn religious beliefs? The man is openly admitting that he believes Jesus did rise - his soul, not body. In addition, consider that the Christian body has maintained the entirety of their funeral sessions on the axiom that your soul leaves your body so that on Judgement day your soul can return to your Earthly body for resurrection. If Jesus rose to heaven in his body, and not soul, then how is he returning to Earth? As far as I understand it, that would contradict what the Bible says. (Not too mention how manipulated the language in the Bible is - by that I mean do not take "And he rose bodily back into heaven" as his physical nature considering that the translation is from latin and derived from the soul of Jesus - not body! Which is only another testament to why I think it is terrible that so many people worship the Bible as truth when it has been manipulated and changed many times).

I highly advise considering the content and evidence found in the video before immediately rebuffing it as "bullshit selfish nonsense" in a media exposed "sell-out" fashion. Consider that the expose is on Discovery - not FOX.

EDIT:

Why was this moved to religion spirituality..? There is strict emphasis on the empirical nature of research - not dogmatic pontification. I am not seeking a religious debate here about the life of Jesus - simply the consideration of empirical evidence of his existance.

~

Originally Posted by O

[...]

EDIT:

Why was this moved to religion spirituality..? There is strict emphasis on the empirical nature of research - not dogmatic pontification. I am not seeking a religious debate here about the life of Jesus - simply the consideration of empirical evidence of his existance.

~
[/b]

I know, and I'm disappointed to move it here. But religious arguments are unavoidable, and this'll cause an uproar anyway of Belief and Disbelief.

Its not that I believe it, I KNOW it.


But OK, we can stay off the God existing stuff.


From all the news stations, they are calling all of this bogus, because there is no way to prove that it is even the Jesus that is talked about in the bible.

Originally Posted by O

This is what I mean. The show has not even aired yet and already people are presuming that there is no evidence and that it is apparently impossible for them to have any empirical evidence. Would you consider that these assumptions are fairly presumptious?

I fairly consider that this man is likely wanting to be famous - who is not? Consider that he is also sharing the expedition with a tremendous amount of other people dating back to 1980.

Further, why does finding his tomb apparently impugn religious beliefs? The man is openly admitting that he believes Jesus did rise - his soul, not body. In addition, consider that the Christian body has maintained the entirety of their funeral sessions on the axiom that your soul leaves your body so that on Judgement day your soul can return to your Earthly body for resurrection. If Jesus rose to heaven in his body, and not soul, then how is he returning to Earth? As far as I understand it, that would contradict what the Bible says. (Not too mention how manipulated the language in the Bible is - by that I mean do not take "And he rose bodily back into heaven" as his physical nature considering that the translation is from latin and derived from the soul of Jesus - not body! Which is only another testament to why I think it is terrible that so many people worship the Bible as truth when it has been manipulated and changed many times).

I highly advise considering the content and evidence found in the video before immediately rebuffing it as "bullshit selfish nonsense" in a media exposed "sell-out" fashion. Consider that the expose is on Discovery - not FOX.

EDIT:

Why was this moved to religion spirituality..? There is strict emphasis on the empirical nature of research - not dogmatic pontification. I am not seeking a religious debate here about the life of Jesus - simply the consideration of empirical evidence of his existance.

~
[/b]

The show from the 1980s did air, and they are planning on releasing a NEW one to re-stir up this subject.

Originally Posted by magicrules22311

Its not that I believe it, I KNOW it.
But OK, we can stay off the God existing stuff.
From all the news stations, they are calling all of this bogus, because there is no way to prove that it is even the Jesus that is talked about in the bible.
The show from the 1980s did air, and they are planning on releasing a NEW one to re-stir up this subject.
[/b]

To avoid any dogmatic conflicts, I would like to notate this easily for both reading and mutual understanding:

- Ad populum arguments are fallacious and do not prove anything. For example: even if everyone in the world believed that all men are immortal, that does not mean that their belief is true. Consider this fallacy when saying, "All news stations are calling this bogus" especially since I have already posted links to an institution that is considering the truth of the matter.

- "There is no way to prove that it is even Jesus" is also a fallacious thing to say. Considering that you and I can both agree you that you did not live in the time that Jesus' body was walking on the Earth, how could you possibly have any knowledge of Jesus' physical fundamental properties that could not be proven? Furthermore: if I were to say that there is no way to prove that there is a flying tea-pot flying in orbit, does that mean that there is a flying tea-pot in orbit?

- Please try to avoid prepositioning things before they have even come to the publics attention. Saying things like, "They are planning on releasing a new on to re-stir up this subject" is presumptious and pretentious considering that none of us have any knowledge of its content. Furthermore, you acknowledge that they did release an airing in 1980 (which was by a different crew) so I think we can both agree that in the 27 years, there is a possibility that new evidence has been found.

I am merely saying let the evidence come out naturally and consider it with an open mind - do not let beliefs interfere with empirical venues as the empirical nature of things can truthfully strengthen your beliefs. Why has it not been considered yet that many, many people do not even believe that Jesus existed? This would prove that he did! I think that is truly groundbreaking! Why has that aspect been ignored and instead Christians are immediately on the defense? I think the Da Vinci Code has sent a hit below the waist (considering its crude presentation) and has unfortunately set people off to possibly beneficial research.

~

Originally Posted by magicrules22311

I know, and I'm disappointed to move it here. But religious arguments are unavoidable, and this'll cause an uproar anyway of Belief and Disbelief.
[/b]

As I stated in my first post - I hope that this does not happen.

~

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?

que sera que sera

if God is real, if Jesus and his miracles were real, science will never be able to disprove it. if the christian has fear of science studying the life of Jesus, then that shows lack of faith or doubt. however, its kinda like the face of jesus study - its not the real face of Jesus but just what someone might have looked like in that era with that culture - but I am sure not everyone had the same face!!

I saw it on the news this morning.

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.

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/86015/..._Rekindled.html

BAM!

Very intresting video about the tomb. Damn, it really fucks up Christians. I have to agree with O'nus. Some people wouldn't accept this even if it was certain it was true. Lol!

Originally Posted by O

(I apologise for my slightly hostile tone - it irritates me that scientific research can not be conducted for fear of their life.)

~
[/b]

As you said, your the one with with the hostile tone. I can honestly say that I don't care one way or the other.... People try to prove this stuff everyday, doesn't mean its true. If it turns out to be true, I'll we like "hey, it turned out to be true, jesus had a kid. Sweet!" I AM offended, however, by your totally stereo-typical statement against people of religion.

I don&#39;t see how the actions of "religious" zealots directly tie to my actions. I have NEVER persecuted anyone for their beliefs, in fact, I find it interesting to listen to others about their religion just see what they have to say. Its not a big deal like atheist speculate it would be. Stop the non-sense, if you plz <3

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

As you said, your the one with with the hostile tone. I can honestly say that I don&#39;t care one way or the other.... People try to prove this stuff everyday, doesn&#39;t mean its true. If it turns out to be true, I&#39;ll we like "hey, it turned out to be true, jesus had a kid. Sweet&#33;" I AM offended, however, by your totally stereo-typical statement against people of religion.

I don&#39;t see how the actions of "religious" zealots directly tie to my actions. I have NEVER persecuted anyone for their beliefs, in fact, I find it interesting to listen to others about their religion just see what they have to say. Its not a big deal like atheist speculate it would be. Stop the non-sense, if you plz <3
[/b]

Amen brother&#33;


-Rob

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

As you said, your the one with with the hostile tone. I can honestly say that I don&#39;t care one way or the other.... People try to prove this stuff everyday, doesn&#39;t mean its true. If it turns out to be true, I&#39;ll we like "hey, it turned out to be true, jesus had a kid. Sweet&#33;" I AM offended, however, by your totally stereo-typical statement against people of religion.

I don&#39;t see how the actions of "religious" zealots directly tie to my actions. I have NEVER persecuted anyone for their beliefs, in fact, I find it interesting to listen to others about their religion just see what they have to say. Its not a big deal like atheist speculate it would be. Stop the non-sense, if you plz <3
[/b]

Man, if religious nuts managed to keep this silent for so long, since the coffin has been found 26 years ago, that would bring another shame to Religion.

I don&#39;t see why you are trying to defend them. You are so hardly brain-raped with Christianity you can&#39;t even admit it&#39;s flaws, that quite clearly there are. I can admit that some atheist suck balls, you have to defend your precious religion everywhere you go, under any circumstances. You even get pissed about it.

Religion rapes science, like stem-cell research.

Religion SUCKS. Oh nooooo, stereotyping :&#39; (

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

As you said, your the one with with the hostile tone. I can honestly say that I don&#39;t care one way or the other.... People try to prove this stuff everyday, doesn&#39;t mean its true. If it turns out to be true, I&#39;ll we like "hey, it turned out to be true, jesus had a kid. Sweet&#33;" I AM offended, however, by your totally stereo-typical statement against people of religion.

I don&#39;t see how the actions of "religious" zealots directly tie to my actions. I have NEVER persecuted anyone for their beliefs, in fact, I find it interesting to listen to others about their religion just see what they have to say. Its not a big deal like atheist speculate it would be. Stop the non-sense, if you plz <3
[/b]

My apologies - I never intended to stereotype or generalise. I did try to carefully word myself so as to express my true concern - the religious fanatics does not include all people of religion, just the fundementalists. I am not saying all religious peoples are attacking science whatsoever. What I did say is that I hope scientific research can continue without religious people interferring and degrading the include scientists.

You do not see me advocating that atheists or scientists should go shut-down churches, do you? I expect the same in return from religions. That is all.

~