Poll: Do you think that this discussion has merit?
Yes, it is a valuable discussion
No, it has too many holes
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Jesus and His Forgotten Tomb
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2016, 11:35 PM
RE: Jesus and His Forgotten Tomb
I always found it most curious that this obsession of jesus freaks with finding the places associated with their godboy did not get rolling until the 4th century.

So what happened then? Well, in 326 Helena, the mother of Constantine, visited the province and wanted to be given the grand tour of the alleged holy sites. How'd you like to be the junior officer who got stuck with conducting that tour? Would you tell the emperor's mother that the Roman army had burned the whole country to the ground twice over since those jesus tales cropped up? Or would you say "Yes, ma'am.... right over here on this rock is where jesus used to take a shit while reading the Jerusalem Gazette every morning."

After Helena, we begin to find written accounts such as the Bordeaux Itinerary. But early xtians did not seem to give a flying fuck about these alleged "holy" places.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
02-09-2016, 01:20 AM
RE: Jesus and His Forgotten Tomb
I find it noteworthy that the earliest version we have of Mark shows the women leaving the empty tomb without telling anyone about it (which would include, presumably, where it is), after which the book ends.

So even if we assume parts of the story are true, and that there was such a tomb, it stands to reason that the other apostles didn't bother going there, and the women didn't tell anyone about the missing body, so none of the 2nd-generation Christians who started writing the Gospels would have had a clue where this place was. So, by the 3rd generation (or later), somebody figures they need to add a bit to Mark, to make it fit with the legend that was included in the next two Gospels written, Matthew and Luke.

On a more realistic note, I find it hilarious that (as was just pointed out) these later-generation Christians would try to make Pilate seem like a nice-enough guy to give in to religious sentiments of ONE Jew (Joseph of Arimathea) on the council and skip making an example of the crucified traitor who declared himself king.

"Well, sure, Joe... I realize that we're having trouble with this recently-conquered province, and that your religious fanatics want to declare their independence under a king who is not the Emperor's chosen subject, but for this one particular self-declared 'King of the Jews', why not make an exception and let him be buried in a noble manner, anyway, thereby publicly affirming my doubts about whether or not he was rightfully king after all? I was gonna let him rot without a decent burial, to discourage future such Messiah claimants, but I guess it couldn't hurt to make an exception right now. What's the worst that could happen if I did? Permission granted!"

It's so asinine that only True Believers™ could have put that idea forward.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
02-09-2016, 02:11 AM
RE: Jesus and His Forgotten Tomb
Evidence for Jesus's existence = evidence for King Arthur's existence.

Both virtually zero.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
02-09-2016, 05:52 AM
RE: Jesus and His Forgotten Tomb
In the gulf separating mythicists and historicists, no arguments are possible regarding the existence or location of Jesus's tomb. It's the same with the Turin Shroud. People who don't believe in a historical Jesus have already been persuaded by the lack of evidence and implausibility in the case for Jesus that tales of tombs or other physical remains like ossuaries are also nonsense.

Regarding the mention in the first line of your post about the 'rapid spread' of Christianity in the first century CE, it's worth, even for believers, checking out something like the Kenneth Humphreys videos on such claims. Personally, I'm with David Fitzgerald and others [like Humphreys, of course] who see the original church in terms of a number of sects which believed in a non-corporeal saviour that, like the spiritual Jesus who repeatedly "revealed" himself to Paul [Simon Magus?], derived their beliefs from mostly Gnostic ideas like the Logos and Sophia.

Schweitzer, a believer, warned that the search for Jesus the man was likely to come up with nothing. The same is, it seems to me, true about the search for a first century CE Catholic sort of church. Believers seem to expect that something clearly similar to the church of the fourth century will show up. It doesn't.

"Paul" may have been writing letters to existing congregations of believers. What did these groups of people believe? Did they worship Mithra? Even this is more likely than the idea that they worshipped a Galilean preacher called Yeshua. Or was it the spiritual Christ Jesus who communicated personal messages to Paul? Apart from, perhaps, the Nag Hammadi scrolls, the information was successfully obliterated, it seems by the fourth century church fathers. With good reason. Constantine's church seems to have almost nothing in common with the original church.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 06:23 AM
RE: Jesus and His Forgotten Tomb
(02-09-2016 05:52 AM)Gert Heide Wrote:  In the gulf separating mythicists and historicists, no arguments are possible regarding the existence or location of Jesus's tomb. It's the same with the Turin Shroud. People who don't believe in a historical Jesus have already been persuaded by the lack of evidence and implausibility in the case for Jesus that tales of tombs or other physical remains like ossuaries are also nonsense.

I'm with you on all but this.

While I'm not a Mythicist, myself, I'm sick to death of people saying that Mythicists have "already made up their minds". Quite the opposite; they have not made up their minds on any of it, but only come to realize that the so-called evidence that has been presented for so long has too many holes to warrant a conclusion of historicity. That's it. Why people feel the need to make them sound like irrational fanatics, I don't know, but it's exhausting. I can't speak for all, but I find their arguments worthy of consideration and always based upon reasonable premises.

The Turin shroud, which "turned up" in the 12th century, has been dated to the 12th century. Oh yes, I know, they claim that the parts that were sampled are contaminated, and if you test other bits of it (which weren't released), you'll get an earlier date, but that's utter hogwash. It JUST SO HAPPENED that the tested bits matched the time when we know the shroud became public? Really!? I've seen philosophical arguments for it, medical reports which directly contradict one another, and finally I've seen scientific analysis of it-- all of which say that while the image is a pretty good depiction of a crucified body (there are some who contest this, too), the image is not proportioned correctly to have been formed by an actual person. So I must conclude that it is a hoax perpetuated by a highly-skilled pious fraudster.

The same applies to your example of the ossuaries. People leap to make connections between the ossuaries that were discovered and the Jesus-story, because of the names matching the characters in the story...except that the ossuaries contain names that totally conflict with the story! We observe one marked with the name of Jesus' son (don't worry, not the Jesus of the myth-book; it was a common name, at the time), specifically.

Again, I think Jesus was a real guy, an apocalyptic preacher in the Galilee in the early first century who was probably executed by the Romans as a potential threat to their claim over the region. But we can't relax our skepticism just because of how popular the story is, or to what lengths believers will go to forge next piece of "evidence".

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
02-09-2016, 06:49 AM
RE: Jesus and His Forgotten Tomb
(02-09-2016 06:23 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 05:52 AM)Gert Heide Wrote:  In the gulf separating mythicists and historicists, no arguments are possible regarding the existence or location of Jesus's tomb. It's the same with the Turin Shroud. People who don't believe in a historical Jesus have already been persuaded by the lack of evidence and implausibility in the case for Jesus that tales of tombs or other physical remains like ossuaries are also nonsense.

I'm with you on all but this.

While I'm not a Mythicist, myself, I'm sick to death of people saying that Mythicists have "already made up their minds". Quite the opposite; they have not made up their minds on any of it, but only come to realize that the so-called evidence that has been presented for so long has too many holes to warrant a conclusion of historicity. That's it. Why people feel the need to make them sound like irrational fanatics, I don't know, but it's exhausting. I can't speak for all, but I find their arguments worthy of consideration and always based upon reasonable premises.

The Turin shroud, which "turned up" in the 12th century, has been dated to the 12th century. Oh yes, I know, they claim that the parts that were sampled are contaminated, and if you test other bits of it (which weren't released), you'll get an earlier date, but that's utter hogwash. It JUST SO HAPPENED that the tested bits matched the time when we know the shroud became public? Really!? I've seen philosophical arguments for it, medical reports which directly contradict one another, and finally I've seen scientific analysis of it-- all of which say that while the image is a pretty good depiction of a crucified body (there are some who contest this, too), the image is not proportioned correctly to have been formed by an actual person. So I must conclude that it is a hoax perpetuated by a highly-skilled pious fraudster.

The same applies to your example of the ossuaries. People leap to make connections between the ossuaries that were discovered and the Jesus-story, because of the names matching the characters in the story...except that the ossuaries contain names that totally conflict with the story! We observe one marked with the name of Jesus' son (don't worry, not the Jesus of the myth-book; it was a common name, at the time), specifically.

Again, I think Jesus was a real guy, an apocalyptic preacher in the Galilee in the early first century who was probably executed by the Romans as a potential threat to their claim over the region. But we can't relax our skepticism just because of how popular the story is, or to what lengths believers will go to forge next piece of "evidence".

I agree RS, I wish people could hold a detached agnosticism for either side of the Jesus myth debate, it's so polarizing that the believers certainly can't do this, it's hard to say "slow down, back up, and stop making definitive declarations."

There's not enough evidence for either side to declare that's it's a closed case and it's likely; and even evident, that what meager evidence we do have has been tampered with.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
02-09-2016, 09:49 AM
RE: Jesus and His Forgotten Tomb
Quote:I find it noteworthy that the earliest version we have of Mark shows the women leaving the empty tomb without telling anyone about it (which would include, presumably, where it is), after which the book ends.


I forget where I read it but there was a very logical reason for that ending.

Xtians themselves admit, grudgingly, that Mark dates from 70. The thing is that the conditions which began in 70 continued until 135 when Hadrian leveled the site to rebuild it as Aelia Capitolina....Roman Urban Renewal. So Mark could have been written anytime between 70-135 and Jerusalem would have looked the same for that whole period of time. Besides, "mark" says that one stone will not remain upon another which Hadrian did accomplish....post 135!

Anyway, the reason for the abrupt ending in 16:8 is that it is an explanation for the reader as to why he has not heard any of this shit before. If the women were the ones who knew, and they said NOTHING, then how could anyone expect to have heard the story? It does lead to the question of "who told mark?" but then, the answer there is that mark made the whole fucking story up!

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
02-09-2016, 10:00 AM
RE: Jesus and His Forgotten Tomb
So far as I know there's only been ONE skeleton found in a tomb that was discovered to be a crucified man. There were thousands of people crucified. If the Romans had allowed loved ones to remove the body from the cross and bury it there should be many more tombs with crucified bones in it. But there isn't.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...n-methods/

Here's the heel bone with the nail going through the side of the heel.

[Image: Heel-bone-and-nail-from-the-ossuary-of-%...ury-CE.jpg]

There is speculation that the feet were nailed from the side through the heel not through the top of the foot. This way looks more painful but I could be wrong....... and I don't want to find out.

[Image: upper-right-heelbone-of-a-crucified-man-...BP27JF.jpg]

With this heel bone as an indication, the position of the body might have had to be arranged on the cross slightly different, such as the below artist's rendering.


[Image: CrucifiedManDrawing.jpg]

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like dancefortwo's post
02-09-2016, 11:00 AM
RE: Jesus and His Forgotten Tomb
(01-09-2016 10:31 PM)Firefighter01 Wrote:  
(31-08-2016 09:23 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Think about this for a minute. The Romans crucified thousands of criminals and rabble-rousers. They didn't bother to record the names of any of them (except possibly Spartacus, if he was real). So why would they make an exception for Jesus? To them, he was just another rabble-rouser. The fact that there is no Roman documentation of his death is not evidence that he didn't exist.
Hi Grasshopper, yes that is true, but there were other historians of that era and some even in the exact area that were silent, which is very improbable IMO. Philo of Alexandria is one very important one that only knew of a celestial Jesus. Also except for that well known, very short interpolation, Josephus is silent too.

Quote:Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines."

-- The Christ, by John E. Remsburg, reprinted by Prometheus Books, New York, 1994, pages 171-3

This is a good argument against the existence of Jesus as depicted in the Gospels. If he really did everything that the Gospels say he did, it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't have "gotten some press". However, if he was just another rabble-rousing preacher who got executed by the Romans, and all the magical stuff was added later by his fans, then I wouldn't expect the Romans or anyone else to take much notice (beyond executing him). That's my take. The Jesus of the Gospels almost certainly didn't exist, but some Jesus (on whom that character is based) probably did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
02-09-2016, 11:21 AM
RE: Jesus and His Forgotten Tomb
(02-09-2016 10:00 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  [Image: upper-right-heelbone-of-a-crucified-man-...BP27JF.jpg]

Shouldn't that nail be pointing in the other direction?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: