Examining Proof Of Jesus

[Amanda]

<snip> The research I've done showed that there actually was an "unknown god" in Athens. Paul simply usurped it for his own needs.

Wow... that makes sense! I have to think how could Paul justify that... unless, did he really believe the Judeo/Christian God was Amen? Otherwise that would be the first dubious method I've seen any of these main characters in the NT take.... other than Judas, of course. Paul was claiming that they were unnecessarily fearful of their Gods, and Amen would also have to be included with them, but a hidden one. I also think the thrust of these teachings is to move god within themselves for self empowerment. However, to use their own God to manipulate them...

 

<snip> It all depends what you consider to be a miracle and what you decide is a metaphor. To many (most?) the walking on water is literal. The healing of the blind is literal. But, if read as metaphor, then they are nothing special. However, if read this way then he can also be reduced to nothing more than a character in the same play. So why have a real character metaphorically "open" someone's eyes? I can see it being used that way...he was a great teacher...but it can also be a great teacher was using the story of a jesus opening the eyes as a metaphor. Why take it only half way?

 

mwc

MWC, that is where it does get confusing. However, what I think is a great part of the problem is the translations. KJV was susceptable to the 'spin' back then. If I look at the concordance to the lexicons and see how each word evolved, I get a much different concept. One that I researched is that they came to Peter's shadow so they may be healed. I know that fire was for purification then, puros is fire and pur, the root, is to cleanse intensely. Fire is a metaphor for judgement, if one does something and gets the repercussions of their actions, judgement, till they don't do it any more, they are going through the fire. Anyway, the way I see the manuscript from which the KJV came is that they came to seek the shade by the one who had intercepted the 'light', so they might be healed. KJV wrote this as they came to be in Peter's shadow so they might be healed. Now this sounds like 'magic' however, the original intentions, IMO, was very ordinary... no 'magic' or 'miracle' as such. The whole book has those kind of inferences. When there was an earthquake when Jesus died, it says that the foundations on which they stood shook. Well this was internal foundations, not physical, yet KJV translates this to earthquake. See what I'm saying?

[mwc]

Wow... that makes sense! I have to think how could Paul justify that... unless, did he really believe the Judeo/Christian God was Amen? Otherwise that would be the first dubious method I've seen any of these main characters in the NT take.... other than Judas, of course. Paul was claiming that they were unnecessarily fearful of their Gods, and Amen would also have to be included with them, but a hidden one. I also think the thrust of these teachings is to move god within themselves for self empowerment. However, to use their own God to manipulate them...

Well, the god Amen, was not a Greek god of couse and so the Greeks would not fear it so much as simply be respectful in a way. They did find the Egyptian culture intriguing much like we do but I haven't seen any connection between Amun and their gods. They did happen to like Isis, as did much of the ancients (later Romans especially liked the Isis cult since it went head to head with xianity), but the other Egyptian deities didn't fare as well outside Egypt.

 

If you read my other post to Zetetic you'll see that I'm not a big fan of Paul and I do believe that he was actually a "shady" character. Just the things he says in his own "defense," for no real reason that we're aware of (we don't get to read the charges), makes me wonder why he's being accused? It seems there's more going on than we're privy to. I also think his teachings are a little bit of this and a little bit of that. He speaks of the gifts of the spirit but then tells the Corinthians that they have too many people doing one type of thing (I'm too lazy to look right now) and they need more of the other because new converts won't be impressed by the one gift. By saying this he basically "outs" himself because he reveals it's all about getting people in the door and then at the end of the same letter (I believe) he then says that he'll be sending one of his lackey's by to get the money. So we need to get asses in the seats and we need to get money collected. The more things change the more they stay the same.

 

MWC, that is where it does get confusing. However, what I think is a great part of the problem is the translations. KJV was susceptable to the 'spin' back then. If I look at the concordance to the lexicons and see how each word evolved, I get a much different concept. One that I researched is that they came to Peter's shadow so they may be healed. I know that fire was for purification then, puros is fire and pur, the root, is to cleanse intensely. Fire is a metaphor for judgement, if one does something and gets the repercussions of their actions, judgement, till they don't do it any more, they are going through the fire. Anyway, the way I see the manuscript from which the KJV came is that they came to seek the shade by the one who had intercepted the 'light', so they might be healed. KJV wrote this as they came to be in Peter's shadow so they might be healed. Now this sounds like 'magic' however, the original intentions, IMO, was very ordinary... no 'magic' or 'miracle' as such. The whole book has those kind of inferences. When there was an earthquake when Jesus died, it says that the foundations on which they stood shook. Well this was internal foundations, not physical, yet KJV translates this to earthquake. See what I'm saying?

I do see what you're saying. It's hard to really agree or disagree since we can't really get into the heads of those who wrote the texts. The best we can do is read what the followers of the religion thought it was all about and see if it matches up...and it really doesn't. That doesn't mean, again, that this isn't the right way to see it but it does mean that those closest to it, in the surviving documents (surviving being the key word), saw it a bit differently.

 

One thing to take into account is that people at that time did believe that magic, as described in the NT, did happen. People today believe it happens in our daily lives after all but more so then. So they didn't need a metaphor when reality did just fine. Someone flew? Okay. That could happen. That doesn't have to be a metaphor to them but to us the scale tips quickly towards metaphor. Now with demons and miracle healing these things are even more likely to be "real" as opposed to metaphor just by the very nature of their world view. This is one reason I am slow, in all cases, to jump on the metaphor wagon.

 

I see the story being a huge analog but written that it could be literal too. So that if you don't know the "code" you simply see the story of a man, his followers and his teachings. If you know the "code," then those same things take on a deeper meaning. But exactly what the "deeper" meaning is I'm not ready to say since I'm positive the story has been altered. I know, what we believe the oldest part, the Passion play, is representative of Israel and her suffering because her people would not change their way. However, the story of the casting out of the demons into the swine, is more along the lines of the telling of the Roman's 10th Legion who were stationed around that region. How, perhaps, during a surprise battle they were "cast out" (dispatched...since they were quite elite and weren't known to have a defeat) and this is why the local town people wished jesus away out of "fear." Why fear someone who can heal and cast out demons? Possibly because the Romans would return to exact revenge for harboring rebels during the war when that bit was added? Just one of several possibilities for that passage alone but it shows a "deeper" non-spiritual meaning that could be hidden there. But as people wrote these little "passages" they inserted them into the stories and altered the ones that were there to suit their current view. The original meaning is now lost or scrambled.

 

I think that when taken into the context of a the First Roman War (and possibly the Second for G.John and bits of the other gospels) you'll find more of the deeper historical and spiritual meaning. They wanted answers for why those things were happening to them and how they were going to recover. That's why the early writings from all these different church fathers and groups (including the non-orthodox) help quite a bit) since I think it shows the general mindset as a whole. They did believe in magic (within their religion but not so much others). They believed in things like the Phoenix bird and other folklore. They were, at the same time, fairly rational and didn't look for deeper meaning beyond a very limited scope (they reinterpreted the "OT" writings to support the "NT" writings and the resurrection ideas...because they were focused on living a righteous life, meaning free from adultery and whatnot, so they could participate in the resurrection...this is a very "face value" reading of things).

 

I'm not as up to speed on the variations of the Gnostic type interpretations but they were almost the same. They had an evil creator god that wasn't aware of the benevolent higher god. Both were going to send messiahs and jesus was the one from the higher god (which is why he wasn't universally recognized). He showed everyone how to "ascend" by becoming "better" in shedding their human body through death. This releases their soul to join the higher god. This god will then, at some point, do away with the evil creator god (and possibly it's followers or allow them to "convert"). I think this version is more along the lines of Marcion but I could be mistaken. As I said I'm not as up to speed in this version of xianity.

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

Hey HanSolo... I'm glad to see you, as it seems you were the one that suggested a relationship of Amen to the Bible in a thread I was participating a long time ago. Pertaining to this thread, the proof of Jesus... I just thought of something interesting, and would like to know your opinion. Amen was an invisible God, and in Jesus name we pray, Amen... would that suggest that Jesus is invisible? As I said that Jesus coming in the flesh did not mean that he came in bodily form, as I researched that and explained it earlier in this thread. However, this equating him with an invisible deity has me feeling a little "earthquake"....

I think it was, once again, a translation error. The hebrew and greek words were Awmane and Ahmane, meaning so-be-it or verily.

 

I guess they just didn't study up on Egytian gods well enough.

[mwc]

MWC, all these mythological beliefs interjected into these scriptures was a surprise to me... however, I had seen where Wicca, Druids, Pagans, Buddhism, and other beliefs were clearly there to me! The resemblances to Solar religions were a surprise, and to go so far as to use Amen's name at the close of each prayer was amazing to find out. There is the association of Amen with the Sun God, called Amen-Ra.

Rather than trying to post it all here go this page [http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/eml/eml39.htm] and take a look around. Be sure to look at the second photo down on that page. The one that shows Amon and the list of captured cities of Israel and Judah. This might give a little clue how this particular deity came to be of any level of importance in their culture.

 

If you poke around that same site (in that book really) you will see that this same god got around and later came to be related to the creator god Ptah and had dealing with Seth (who was the god of the Hyksos, who you might know as the Canaanites who were expelled from Egypt, and later their variation of a Baal and El came to be a YHWH through some complicated turn of events that we don't really understand). Anyhow...it's all loosely related...but well over 1000 years before the NT events as we know them even start. The book even suggests that this Amon could be a god of the underworld and a number of other things.

 

I imagine a cult of Amon could have stayed around for that long and influenced the writing of the myth but it just seems a little...far fetched. There are better candidates by this point in time. Not that it rules it out but Mithras or Osiris are just two examples of deities that I think that they would be more inclined to "borrow" from (simply because the knowledge was available unlike Amon or some others). Personally, I think they were more "inspired" than anything. Much like I see happening in this thread I see people looking to other religions and philosophies and simply taking away concepts that "speak" to them on some level and then they used that in their work. That is why we see things from other groups that are close but not an exact match for this "new" religion. In fact, it's what allows people to say the borrowing occurred the other direction.

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

Much like I see happening in this thread I see people looking to other religions and philosophies and simply taking away concepts that "speak" to them on some level and then they used that in their work. That is why we see things from other groups that are close but not an exact match for this "new" religion. In fact, it's what allows people to say the borrowing occurred the other direction.

 

mwc

I agree and I also think that there can be similar images that occur without contact with other religions. You could have Native Americans and the Eastern Religions using similar images.

 

There is one myth that has one person going into a well and coming out a new person. There is the Jonah and the whale story in Judaism and then there is the Christ in the tomb in Christianity. All very similar symbols to say the same thing.

 

Everyone is human afterall...

[mwc]

I agree and I also think that there can be similar images that occur without contact with other religions. You could have Native Americans and the Eastern Religions using similar images.

Could this be due to universal symbolism or maybe the (earth) symbols were established many, many thousands of years ago and when the earliest "Americans" came across (the land bridge) from the East those symbols came with them?

 

I'm not saying either answer is correct I'm just seeing that there may have been more than one reason for the connection between these cultures. Just like the connections in the Southern Pacific cultures. At some point they seem to be connected but over time they drifted apart as they established their localized versions of the myths.

 

With the earth symbols being so basic to all societies it seems they would be first to be established and so they'd be the oldest. After that (probably very closely) we'd get the astrological symbols and so on. Going from the "universal" to the divergent "local" symbols ("snow" versus "lava" for example).

 

There is one myth that has one person going into a well and coming out a new person. There is the Jonah and the whale story in Judaism and then there is the Christ in the tomb in Christianity. All very similar symbols to say the same thing.

 

Everyone is human afterall...

Exactly. Water is universally (for the most part) seen to clean. So going into a well would make one clean or new. Fire can be seen to get rid of impurity in objects so it can have the same effect as well.

 

As for the Jonah/jesus connection, that one's easy, since the stories mention it. It's like you're not even trying anymore.

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

As for the Jonah/jesus connection, that one's easy, since the stories mention it. It's like you're not even trying anymore.

 

mwc

Well, yeah...that is cheating a little.

[soor]

Isn't the date we currently use (2007) AD based on he birth of Christ?

[Ouroboros]

Isn't the date we currently use (2007) AD based on he birth of Christ?

That's the idea, but no one knows which year the birth of Christ really was.

 

If Jesus did exist, and if the stories about his birth contain clues to when he was born, then he was born between 8–2 BC/BCE.

[mwc]

I knew I had this bookmarked:

 

2. The Gregorian Calendar

The Gregorian calendar today serves as an international standard for civil use. In addition, it regulates the ceremonial cycle of the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. In fact, its original purpose was ecclesiastical. Although a variety of other calendars are in use today, they are restricted to particular religions or cultures.

 

2.1 Rules for Civil Use

Years are counted from the initial epoch defined by Dionysius Exiguus, and are divided into two classes: common years and leap years. A common year is 365 days in length; a leap year is 366 days, with an intercalary day, designated February 29, preceding March 1. Leap years are determined according to the following rule:

Every year that is exactly divisible by 4 is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100;

these centurial years are leap years only if they are exactly divisible by 400.

 

As a result the year 2000 is a leap year, whereas 1900 and 2100 are not leap years. These rules can be applied to times prior to the Gregorian reform to create a proleptic Gregorian calendar. In this case, year 0 (1 B.C.) is considered to be exactly divisible by 4, 100, and 400; hence it is a leap year.

 

The Gregorian calendar is thus based on a cycle of 400 years, which comprises 146097 days. Since 146097 is evenly divisible by 7, the Gregorian civil calendar exactly repeats after 400 years. Dividing 146097 by 400 yields an average length of 365.2425 days per calendar year, which is a close approximation to the length of the tropical year. Comparison with Equation 1.1-1 reveals that the Gregorian calendar accumulates an error of one day in about 2500 years. Although various adjustments to the leap-year system have been proposed, none has been instituted.

 

Within each year, dates are specified according to the count of days from the beginning of the month. The order of months and number of days per month were adopted from the Julian calendar.

 

Table 2.1.1

Months of the Gregorian Calendar 1. January 31 7. July 31

2. February 28* 8. August 31

3. March 31 9. September 30

4. April 30 10. October 31

5. May 31 11. November 30

6. June 30 12. December 31

 

* In a leap year, February has 29 days.

 

2.2 Ecclesiastical Rules

The ecclesiastical calendars of Christian churches are based on cycles of movable and immovable feasts. Christmas is the principal immovable feast, with its date set at December 25. Easter is the principal movable feast, and dates of most other movable feasts are determined with respect to Easter. However, the movable feasts of the Advent and Epiphany seasons are Sundays reckoned from Christmas and the Feast of the Epiphany, respectively.

 

In the Gregorian calendar, the date of Easter is defined to occur on the Sunday following the ecclesiastical Full Moon that falls on or next after March 21. This should not be confused with the popular notion that Easter is the first Sunday after the first Full Moon following the vernal equinox. In the first place, the vernal equinox does not necessarily occur on March 21. In addition, the ecclesiastical Full Moon is not the astronomical Full Moon -- it is based on tables that do not take into account the full complexity of lunar motion. As a result, the date of an ecclesiastical Full Moon may differ from that of the true Full Moon. However, the Gregorian system of leap years and lunar tables does prevent progressive departure of the tabulated data from the astronomical phenomena.

 

The ecclesiastical Full Moon is defined as the fourteenth day of a tabular lunation, where day 1 corresponds to the ecclesiastical New Moon. The tables are based on the Metonic cycle, in which 235 mean synodic months occur in 6939.688 days. Since nineteen Gregorian years is 6939.6075 days, the dates of Moon phases in a given year will recur on nearly the same dates nineteen years laters. To prevent the 0.08 day difference between the cycles from accumulating, the tables incorporate adjustments to synchronize the system over longer periods of time. Additional complications arise because the tabular lunations are of 29 or 30 integral days. The entire system comprises a period of 5700000 years of 2081882250 days, which is equated to 70499183 lunations. After this period, the dates of Easter repeat themselves.

 

The following algorithm for computing the date of Easter is based on the algorithm of Oudin (1940). It is valid for any Gregorian year, Y. All variables are integers and the remainders of all divisions are dropped. The final date is given by M, the month, and D, the day of the month.

C = Y/100,

N = Y - 19*(Y/19),

K = (C - 17)/25,

I = C - C/4 - (C - K)/3 + 19*N + 15,

I = I - 30*(I/30),

I = I - (I/28)*(1 - (I/28)*(29/(I + 1))*((21 - N)/11)),

J = Y + Y/4 + I + 2 - C + C/4,

J = J - 7*(J/7),

L = I - J,

M = 3 + (L + 40)/44,

D = L + 28 - 31*(M/4).

 

2.3 History of the Gregorian Calendar

The Gregorian calendar resulted from a perceived need to reform the method of calculating dates of Easter. Under the Julian calendar the dating of Easter had become standardized, using March 21 as the date of the equinox and the Metonic cycle as the basis for calculating lunar phases. By the thirteenth century it was realized that the true equinox had regressed from March 21 (its supposed date at the time of the Council of Nicea, +325) to a date earlier in the month. As a result, Easter was drifting away from its springtime position and was losing its relation with the Jewish Passover. Over the next four centuries, scholars debated the "correct" time for celebrating Easter and the means of regulating this time calendrically. The Church made intermittent attempts to solve the Easter question, without reaching a consensus.

 

By the sixteenth century the equinox had shifted by ten days, and astronomical New Moons were occurring four days before ecclesiastical New Moons. At the behest of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V introduced a new Breviary in 1568 and Missal in 1570, both of which included adjustments to the lunar tables and the leap-year system. Pope Gregory XIII, who succeeded Pope Pius in 1572, soon convened a commission to consider reform of the calendar, since he considered his predecessor's measures inadequate.

 

The recommendations of Pope Gregory's calendar commission were instituted by the papal bull "Inter Gravissimus," signed on 1582 February 24. Ten days were deleted from the calendar, so that 1582 October 4 was followed by 1582 October 15, thereby causing the vernal equinox of 1583 and subsequent years to occur about March 21. And a new table of New Moons and Full Moons was introduced for determining the date of Easter.

 

Subject to the logistical problems of communication and governance in the sixteenth century, the new calendar was promulgated through the Roman-Catholic world. Protestant states initially rejected the calendar, but gradually accepted it over the coming centuries. The Eastern Orthodox churches rejected the new calendar and continued to use the Julian calendar with traditional lunar tables for calculating Easter. Because the purpose of the Gregorian calendar was to regulate the cycle of Christian holidays, its acceptance in the non-Christian world was initially not at issue. But as international communications developed, the civil rules of the Gregorian calendar were gradually adopted around the world.

 

Anyone seriously interested in the Gregorian calendar should study the collection of papers resulting from a conference sponsored by the Vatican to commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of the Gregorian Reform (Coyne et al., 1983).

 

So checking on Wikipedia for Dionysius Exiguus

Anno Domini

 

Dionysius is best-known as the inventor of the Anno Domini era, which is used to number the years of both the Gregorian calendar and the Julian calendar. He used it to identify the several Easters in his Easter tables, but did not use it to date any historical event. When he devised his tables, Julian calendar years were identified by naming the consuls who held office that year — he himself stated that the "present year" was "the consulship of Probus Junior [Flavius Probus]", which he also stated was 525 years "since the incarnation [conception] of our Lord Jesus Christ". How he arrived at that number is unknown. He invented a new system of numbering years to replace the Diocletian years that had been used in an old Easter table because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians. The Anno Domini era became dominant in Western Europe only after it was used by the Venerable Bede to date the events in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, completed in 731.

It seems that based on these two things that they just wanted to figure out when Easter should really be (and by extension other xian holidays) and he took a guess at when he thought jesus was born. It stuck.

 

Once again it seems that the "truth" isn't all it's cracked up to be. I do like how Protestants rejected it, and were slow to accept it, but now treat it all like their god dropped the whole thing out of the sky to prove his existence.

 

mwc

[Amanda]

I'm sure most of you have heard about the claim of James Cameron to have found the tomb of Jesus. It is fairly comical to see the Christians disclaim it, as that would disprove the resurrection cornerstone of the religion to most fundamentalists. They don't even realize the controversy over him ever existing or not! Yet, I'm sure those that want to believe he never existed are going to discard most of it too. If it were to be true, what chance of acceptance could it possible have?

 

Here it says this:

Jesus: Tales from the Crypt

Brace yourself. James Cameron, the man who brought you 'The Titanic' is back with another blockbuster. This time, the ship he's sinking is Christianity.

 

In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.

 

No, it's not a re-make of "The Da Vinci Codes'. It's supposed to be true.

 

Let's go back 27 years, when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb. of Jerusalem. The earth

 

gave way, revealing a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets. Archologists were summoned, and the stone caskets carted away for examination. It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.

Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names.

 

There was also this little inconvenience that a few miles away, in the old city of Jerusalem, Christians for centuries had been worshipping the empty tomb of Christ at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Christ's resurrection, after all, is the main foundation of the faith, proof that a boy born to a carpenter's wife in a manger is the Son of God.

 

But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family.

 

Ever the showman, (Why does this remind me of the impresario in another movie,"King Kong", whose hubris blinds him to the dangers of an angry and very large ape?) Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. News about the film, which will be shown soon on Discovery Channel, Britain's Channel 4, Canada's Vision, and Israel's Channel 8, has been a hot blog topic in the Middle East (check out a personal favorite: Israelity Bites) Here in the Holy Land, Biblical Archeology is a dangerous profession. This 90-minute documentary is bound to outrage Christians and stir up a titanic debate between believers and skeptics. Stay tuned.

--Tim McGirk/Jerusalem

[NotBlinded]

Cool Amanda.

 

I was at my sister's house a couple of weeks ago and my nephew's wife gave my sister some book about DNA testing with the family of Jesus and stuff. My sister stated that they would be in trouble if they could link Jesus' DNA to Joseph. I was playing Guitar Hero, so my little giggles were probably thought to be related to the way I was playing instead of their discussion. They know a little about where I stand...not as much as I would like, but I figure there's no need to push my position, although I would like them to come around a little and realize that what they believe could be felt so much more on a deeper level if they dropped the literal stuff.

 

I hope this is a genuine find and then maybe people could move beyond the literal to get to the spiritual truths that are actually in the bible. I know most that are too afraid to believe it would deny it, but I would hope that it would affect some.

[mwc]

Don't get your hopes up. These two are the forces behind the Exodus Decoded. That was an amazingly shoddy piece of work but its slick production, along with the inclusion of James Cameron, likely convinced some folks it had some sort of sound research behind it. Simcha had another series of work prior to these two big productions, and by and large, they're better off watched for simple entertainment that might possibly contain something of value instead of the other way around.

 

I'm sure I'll end up watching it anyway just to see what kind of hatchet job he takes to the whole thing this time around to make his theory work.

 

mwc

[Amanda]

Don't worry MWC... unfortunately, no one will let this one fly. There's people so frustrated with the Christians, they deny any part of Jesus, because who would want to give one piece of credibility to their crazy claims of him. Christians do a good job on their own discrediting any evidence Jesus existed. They hold a lot of political clout, and the same thing happened when there seemed to be evidence that Jesus was in India with the Buddhist. No, their Jesus was never into Buddhism and he wasn't buried in a grave either, since he divinely ascended to the heaven up there somewhere.

 

I think the bones found of James may be significant. IDK. But there is room for doubt, just because someone else wrote something on it about 300 years later doesn't necessarily mean they're not. It would be interesting if they check the DNA of those bones and those of the new findings. Additionally the lost years of Jesus, he may have spent some time into Buddhism. As I for one, see these teachings attributed to the character of Jesus, more alligned with Buddhism. Now we have the tomb. What possible evidence would it take to prove his existence?

 

Having said that, should he have existed... he certainly wasn't the guy that ascended into thin air and did magic to and fro. I would think that if this were to be significantly determined to be Jesus, think of what an impact that would have on fundamentalsim! He did NOT ascend into another demension, but was an ordinary man that was probably amazing for his time. That's all. This finding might be what the fundies need to come out of the dark and see the light.

[mwc]

Don't worry MWC... unfortunately, no one will let this one fly. There's people so frustrated with the Christians, they deny any part of Jesus, because who would want to give one piece of credibility to their crazy claims of him. Christians do a good job on their own discrediting any evidence Jesus existed. They hold a lot of political clout, and the same thing happened when there seemed to be evidence that Jesus was in India with the Buddhist. No, their Jesus was never into Buddhism and he wasn't buried in a grave either, since he divinely ascended to the heaven up there somewhere.

There's just a lot of problems with a tomb in Jerusalem to begin with. They were supposedly from Galilee so their family tomb would be there despite where jesus got placed. If we take away the death in the bible, assuming then a natural life, then we might as well put him back up North for family burial, right? There's no reason to keep him in Jerusalem beyond the ministry.

 

The idea of going to India is one tradition that, I believe, comes along quite a bit later. It ignores the fact that if he were to attain the level of knowledge he supposedly had that he would need to be there much longer than the "missing" years of the gospel stories. It's been awhile since I've read anything about this though so I could be way off base here. It doesn't negate the idea of any eastern influences in the belief system though.

 

I think the bones found of James may be significant. IDK. But there is room for doubt, just because someone else wrote something on it about 300 years later doesn't necessarily mean they're not. It would be interesting if they check the DNA of those bones and those of the new findings. Additionally the lost years of Jesus, he may have spent some time into Buddhism. As I for one, see these teachings attributed to the character of Jesus, more alligned with Buddhism. Now we have the tomb. What possible evidence would it take to prove his existence?

No bones. Bone box. Just the box was found. The box is real. It's the inscription that is debated. Possibly only half is accurate. Since the box came via a known forger from an unknown collection there's no knowing anything about it beyond just that. That's why archaeologists hate robbers. They might find neat things but once they are out of their context they lose their historic value (but they keep their black market value...which is the problem). The box, anyway, has the inscription that is something like "James, brother of Jesus, son of Joseph." People thought the first half "James, brother of Jesus" was fake but it looks like the "son of Joseph" is the fake part. Still, James and Jesus were common names so the inscription is meaningless even if valid. Even if 100% valid it proves nothing. If the story by Josephus is true, and James was stoned (and about this same James), he would not be allowed a proper burial according to Jewish law anyway, so no box for James negating the entire point.

 

It's really hard for "history" to prove the existence of someone especially when so many documents were knowingly tampered with. An inscription on a stone item from that period would sure help. We have the stone item with Pilate on it. That helped solidify his existence. People say he was doubted but not so much. The stone just really helped. So, if something like that, for jesus of Nazareth AND Pilate, could be found for instance, then that would be really great. But it would never happen since there would be no point to carving that stone. Additionally, Nazareth didn't come back into being until the end of the 1st century CE (it had a period of general nothingness). There was a Roman city about 5 miles away (Sapphirus (SP?)) that is NEVER once mentioned in the bible but this city would be known to anyone and everyone in the region. But even it's not mentioned to identify this jesus.

 

Having said that, should he have existed... he certainly wasn't the guy that ascended into thin air and did magic to and fro. I would think that if this were to be significantly determined to be Jesus, think of what an impact that would have on fundamentalsim! He did NOT ascend into another demension, but was an ordinary man that was probably amazing for his time. That's all. This finding might be what the fundies need to come out of the dark and see the light.

If it were ever shown that there was a living human jesus, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and he was just that, a human. He lived and died, but no more. Perhaps he started a religion or perhaps not. I think that the Universalism type movements would grow in popularity. I think jesus would be recast as a prophet (which I think he was initially meant to be) and people would rework god to suit their own interests.

 

Not too much would change really except churches might be in trouble.

 

mwc

[Amanda]

I was at my sister's house a couple of weeks ago and my nephew's wife gave my sister some book about DNA testing with the family of Jesus and stuff. My sister stated that they would be in trouble if they could link Jesus' DNA to Joseph.

NBBTB, I suppose that if they find this tomb to significantly have a reputable claim to it being "the" Jesus, then we will find in the DNA that God is at least half man? It would be great if we could check Joseph's DNA too, yet I think that is asking too much now, don't you? There might be indications to link his genetic heritage though. If they have Mary the mother, and Jesus, then maybe they can tell if Joseph could be included or excluded?

 

There's just a lot of problems with a tomb in Jerusalem to begin with. They were supposedly from Galilee so their family tomb would be there despite where jesus got placed. If we take away the death in the bible, assuming then a natural life, then we might as well put him back up North for family burial, right? There's no reason to keep him in Jerusalem beyond the ministry.

MWC, I have not researched those ideas, however, it seems to me that he could have very well have had a tomb given to him for perhaps his supposed efforts. Anyway, just because it was not typical, does not mean it didn't happen. If he were real, we could go back to the theory he disappeared into thin air.

<snip> The idea of going to India is one tradition that, I believe, comes along quite a bit later. It ignores the fact that if he were to attain the level of knowledge he supposedly had that he would need to be there much longer than the "missing" years of the gospel stories.

I had always thought he had traveled many other places than India, because I could see other cultural teachings within "his" teachings. Now, I'm not sure if the others were just included as Christianity spread to other places. Yet, my point being, is that when there is a time to perhaps consider likely evidence of his existence, such as this tomb and the India assertion, both sides, being so passionate in their beliefs, are automatically against it. So how could these findings even have a chance?

 

It's really hard for "history" to prove the existence of someone especially when so many documents were knowingly tampered with.

The persecution didn't help, as I'm sure many documents were not kept for fear of being identified as being part of the cult. History and the church did an amazing distorting influence too, IMO. I'm sure it became beneficial to those in power to just write in it what they wanted it to say, especially in the translations. I see huge spins in the KJV, yet maybe just a reflection of the common beliefs at the time.

 

<snip> Not too much would change really except churches might be in trouble.

 

mwc

Think of all the persecution that would end if just that happened.

 

[Amanda]

MWC and NBBTB, last night I just got to watch a little of Larry King, who had a couple of guests associated with making the documentary of the tomb of Jesus. It seems the initial find of the tomb about 1980, was not considered so significant because instead of listing the name Mary Magdalene on the tomb is the name Merriam (sp?). Apparently the archeologist were unaware of a recent discovery at the time that Mary Magdalene's real name was Merriam, and the scholars who had uncovered Mary M.'s real name as Merriam were unaware of the archeologists' find.

 

Another consideration they presented to warrant further investigation of this tomb being of Jesus, is that all these names are together. They were giving the statistics of how common those names were of the time. Yes, they were quite common, yet I don't remember the exact statistics. If you consider people having the name Jesus, there were many. Now look at how many had the name Jesus that had a father named Joseph, and the number deminishes. Now having the name Jesus, with a father named Joseph, a mother named Mary, a brother named James, and associated, probably married to Merriam, and the number becomes very, very significant! I don't remember the statistics, but they were certainly impressive enough to take further consideration to this find being taken with seriousness. Also, I will mention that it seems they may have said some other names of which I am not familiar, pertaining to the tomb. I think they used the popularly known names to relay their point, yet I vaguely remember mentioning the referencing of other names too, but not sure of the extent of it. Maybe it was just the name of the son of Jesus.

 

The one gentleman with the documentary also mentioned that the find of the ossuary of James is still being looked at by scholars to examine its authenticity. It seems the problem is mostly because it was not found by a recognized archeologist find. It seems that archeologist take an impressive chain of command validating authenticity during the whole excavation. There is where much of the problem is with the ossuary of James. Still, the ossuary is still far from being completely considered a hoax.

 

His show also had a minister on there that was going crazy! The gentleman associated with the documentary had to ask the minister to calm down, reminding him that yelling didn't make him any more correct. The minister tried to compose him self, but IMO, the people associated with the documentary came across much more professional. Did yor see the Larry King Show too?

[Ouroboros]

NBBTB, I suppose that if they find this tomb to significantly have a reputable claim to it being "the" Jesus, then we will find in the DNA that God is at least half man? It would be great if we could check Joseph's DNA too, yet I think that is asking too much now, don't you? There might be indications to link his genetic heritage though. If they have Mary the mother, and Jesus, then maybe they can tell if Joseph could be included or excluded?

I wonder how a "Holy Spirit Y-Chromosome" is any different from a natural one? Since that's what Jesus must've had. And I wonder if Jesus had endogenous retroviruses or not, and especially the one causing vitamin C deficiency.

[Amanda]

I wonder how a "Holy Spirit Y-Chromosome" is any different from a natural one? Since that's what Jesus must've had. And I wonder if Jesus had endogenous retroviruses or not, and especially the one causing vitamin C deficiency.

 

HanSolo, I don't think endogenous retroviruses have a genetic link, do they? Would that prove anything?

 

I was just thinking that maybe they could tell from the stated lineage of Joseph, if they could look at Mary's DNA lineage in regards to Jesus DNA, and if the differences could be attributed to the supposed lineage of Joseph. I've heard of people's DNA being researched back to common ancestors, so was curious if something along these lines could be analyzed in regards to the lineage given in the biblical renderings.

[NotBlinded]

I didn't see the show, but I wish I would have Amanda.

 

It sounds very interesting, but I would have especially loved to see the minister have a fit! Yes, I still have a little devil in me... "The truth??? We don't want the truth!" hehehe...

[Ouroboros]

I wonder how a "Holy Spirit Y-Chromosome" is any different from a natural one? Since that's what Jesus must've had. And I wonder if Jesus had endogenous retroviruses or not, and especially the one causing vitamin C deficiency.

 

HanSolo, I don't think endogenous retroviruses have a genetic link, do they? Would that prove anything?

What do you mean with "genetic link"? They are inherited, and all humans share the same ones, and we even share many of them with the chimps. But it's true though that Jesus still could have had the same ERVs, since they're not necessarily located in the Y-Chr, I guess. But still, if God had the chance of impregnate a woman with a supernatural gene to create the perfect human, would he remove the ERV's or not? I just realized the story is very similar to all these X-men, Superman etc stories, in the sense that we want to have superstrong heroes that can do anything. Something or someone to look up to.

 

I was just thinking that maybe they could tell from the stated lineage of Joseph, if they could look at Mary's DNA lineage in regards to Jesus DNA, and if the differences could be attributed to the supposed lineage of Joseph. I've heard of people's DNA being researched back to common ancestors, so was curious if something along these lines could be analyzed in regards to the lineage given in the biblical renderings.

I think most of the lineage is done through the mDNA, but I'm not sure. Since it has the slowest mutation rate. If they find Jesus' DNA and could replicate it to a clone, we could have the return of Jesus after all. Jesus II.

[Amanda]

<snip> But still, if God had the chance of impregnate a woman with a supernatural gene to create the perfect human, would he remove the ERV's or not? I just realized the story is very similar to all these X-men, Superman etc stories, in the sense that we want to have superstrong heroes that can do anything. Something or someone to look up to.

HanSolo, we know "Jesus" is just a man that got blown out of proportion. Recently I was watching a documentary of a famous artist, I think Rafael. He was known for how he added so much intense drama to his biblical paintings, enriching the reverence they felt these stories so deserved. These kinds of innocent depictions of these stories took these biblical accounts into a whole new world of their own. However, which story is more endearing to you... Santa Claus or St. Nicholas?

 

This tomb may be the best thing that ever happened. Especially if statistically it is given the perponderance of the weight to be considered a significant find of considerable authenticity. Many people here don't want to admit to any of the story being more than a myth, like Zeus or something, for fear of resigning to other parts being true. Yet, the tomb of Jesus would put things into a whole different perspective for the religous right. IMO, it will make them forced to consider a more reasonable and meaningful way to look at these teachings.

 

<snip> If they find Jesus' DNA and could replicate it to a clone, we could have the return of Jesus after all. Jesus II.

OMG, unfortunately, you're not going to be the only one who thinks of that! :ohmy: However, IMO, these biblical teachings are NOT about a man coming back named Jesus. It is about a body of people being formed with christlike attitudes, which are very different than those of the fundamentalist. It says in the bible of Jesus' return, that if any person should point to a man and say here is the christ or there is the christ, he is lying... and that is how you will know he is a false prophet. I believe the bible is talking about his return in a corporate body. So if this "Jesus" is cloned, it will NOT fulfill prophecy IMO.

 

Mt 24:23 -

Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There!' do not believe it.

 

Mr 13:21 -

Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, He is there!' do not believe it.

[Amanda]

NBBTB, I noticed ExC has something written on it that is more informative than what I presented. It says the names and more. Check http://exchristian.net/2/2007/02/jesus-tomb-found.html

[mwc]

This tomb may be the best thing that ever happened. Especially if statistically it is given the perponderance of the weight to be considered a significant find of considerable authenticity. Many people here don't want to admit to any of the story being more than a myth, like Zeus or something, for fear of resigning to other parts being true. Yet, the tomb of Jesus would put things into a whole different perspective for the religous right. IMO, it will make them forced to consider a more reasonable and meaningful way to look at these teachings.

Hey! I only believe it's a myth. What is it I am supposed to fear?

 

Believe me when I say IF, and that's a big IF based on what I said about old Simcha earlier, this pans out, then I truly welcome this find. I have no need for the religion but I do enjoy learning and I love the history and archaeology. If this is what is revealed then so be it. Dig up the whole near and middle east...there's a wealth of information still waiting to be discovered. I'll simply adjust my thinking based on this new information. Isn't that what learning is all about? I really don't have anything to fear.

 

<snip> If they find Jesus' DNA and could replicate it to a clone, we could have the return of Jesus after all. Jesus II.

OMG, unfortunately, you're not going to be the only one who thinks of that! :ohmy: However, IMO, these biblical teachings are NOT about a man coming back named Jesus. It is about a body of people being formed with christlike attitudes, which are very different than those of the fundamentalist. It says in the bible of Jesus' return, that if any person should point to a man and say here is the christ or there is the christ, he is lying... and that is how you will know he is a false prophet. I believe the bible is talking about his return in a corporate body. So if this "Jesus" is cloned, it will NOT fulfill prophecy IMO.

They did this is Star Trek. One of the Klingon prophecies was "fulfilled" when they cloned the original Klingon from blood off his sword and put his "memories" into him. He divided the Empire since some saw it as a legit fulfillment and others rejected the meddling of the priests. He stayed around for some time but I don't recall how it turn out.

 

While I'm at it Star Trek is a good way to describe, in a general sense, how I see some of the early writings. Star Trek was morality plays set in the 23rd century. Saying things someone in the 1960's couldn't say but someone in the 23rd century could. Now go back to the latter half of the first century and have someone, anonymously, writing about the latter half of the 1st century but as someone from the 1st half of the 1st century. Someone speaking of how things will be if things don't change and then things turn out that way. Same type of thing.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

<snip> But still, if God had the chance of impregnate a woman with a supernatural gene to create the perfect human, would he remove the ERV's or not? I just realized the story is very similar to all these X-men, Superman etc stories, in the sense that we want to have superstrong heroes that can do anything. Something or someone to look up to.

HanSolo, we know "Jesus" is just a man that got blown out of proportion. Recently I was watching a documentary of a famous artist, I think Rafael. He was known for how he added so much intense drama to his biblical paintings, enriching the reverence they felt these stories so deserved. These kinds of innocent depictions of these stories took these biblical accounts into a whole new world of their own. However, which story is more endearing to you... Santa Claus or St. Nicholas?

Yeah, I know, but just think about it. If it was really true, that Jesus was son of God, and they found one drop of his blood, then it had to have supernatural attributes to it, and the DNA should be perfect. Didn't the Bible claim that Jesus was perfect, without blemish etc? Then the DNA should have been perfect. I wonder about the dormant genes for tail, primate body hair etc still would be dormant or would they be turned on? Did Jesus have a tail?