Anyone see this - the tomb of Jesus found
0
-
[?] Maybe, maybe not. 0 -
News sites (Fox and others) are saying the evidence is pretty flimsy. Probably better television than history. 0 -
What does this prove other then an attempt by Hollywood to discredit Christianity.
2000 years ago the names Jesus, Mary, & Joseph were as common as Tom, Betty, and Ted. Besides, Jesus' family was too poor to afford a burial of this type. Not to mention there were several hundred eye witnesses to his having risen from the dead.
Trinity +++0 -
I wasn't around yet so you will have to tell if it was or wasn't Is it nice to older than dirt.[:D][:D][:p][^] 0 -
Television also brought us evidence that the ancient Egyptians came from Mars, that Al Capone buried nothing whatever for Geraldo to find and assorted other great moments in history. 0 -
The "rising of christ" was written how many 100's of years after is supposedly happened?...and where were all the eye witnesses then?...where are the papers (tablets etc) that the witnesses wrote it on?...Cause after all we know that anything by word of mouth can be changed into something else entirely within a day...Imagine what can happen in hundreds of years...[:o)] 0 -
Ahhh... wasn't Jesus buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, then risen in three days, then risen to heaven, body and spirit, in another forty days. He wouldn't have been buried in the family tomb. 0 -
The gospels were written no less than 30 years AD, Paul later. 0 -
One sided, mono focal, propagandy. Its the equivelent of an info-mercial. Watch it when it comes out and you will see a sales pitch, trying to tell you what to think. Not a "documentary". 0 -
What I find curious is the fact that a person with such importance never once wrote anything that is in the Bible, It is all Quotes written as you say (scholars disagree on the time of the writings starting any where from 50 to 250 years AD) by someone saying that 'HE" said this and that. Everything that is supposed to be said by Jesus is in the 2nd or third party and has been poluted over the years.. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Classic095
What I find curious is the fact that a person with such importance never once wrote anything that is in the Bible, It is all Quotes written as you say (scholars disagree on the time of the writings starting any where from 50 to 250 years AD) by someone saying that 'HE" said this and that. Everything that is supposed to be said by Jesus is in the 2nd or third party and has been poluted over the years..
Guess he was too busy saving souls and performing miracles to write anything down.[;)]0 -
Where did the idea that the teachings of Jesus were written 100 years after his crucifixion? All the apostles were dead within 100 years of Jesus having been crucified.
The New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John were all written by the apostles. The apostle Luke wrote ACTS, The apostle Paul is credited with having written the books of Romans, First & Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First & Second Thessalonians, First & Second Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. The Book of James was written by the apostle James who some believe was a brother of Jesus. The apostle Peter wrote first & second Peter. The apostle John wrote the First, second, & third books of John. A lot of these books are similarly written.
The book of Luke begins the second volume of his history of Christianity (Acts 1: 1-3) by telling how Jesus poured out the Holy Spirit on the apostles. The Spirit in turn inspired them to spred the message of salvation from Jeusalem to Rome. Luke stresses how unity and love prevail in the Church and how God protects the missionaries from their enemies. When you read these books you become aware of how powerful the Holy Spirit is and still is within the Church and all belivers, and how God still protects us against the forces of evil.
The tablets & scrolls may be long gone but every Bible you pick up is proof of its text.
I guess it was all just a coincidence.
Have faith.
Trinity +++0 -
Well I suppose the Mormans, the JW and th Koran and the Torah are all proof of their text..
If you read the bible and try to understand what it is saying everything in it is off DATE, and no two persons tell the same tale. There is no historocity of Jesus ever existing except . someone told you so. His birthday is discribed as to have take place in three different times, all spanning a time of 50 years, There is no exact date for his death, the bible claims around 40 and some writers clame over 50 and some merely say befor he was 50. Many books of the Bible were not authorized (cannonized) up to as late as 350 years ago.
50 years after the death of someone the stories are bound to change.. That is why no two stories of Jesus agree. Like them calling him Jesus of Nazareth , Impossible at the time as Nazareth was not a town but a Burial ground, with is caves , as Jesus and his family ws Jewish the Law forbid residence within a certain distance of burial grounds.. Read it, Its in the bible..[}:)]0 -
I beg to differ sir, but there are several books that are similar, but written from different view points. Also, "canonized" is a term used by the Catholic Church and royalty. What would it have to do with basic Christian beliefs?
Canonization is the process used by certain Christian to definitively declare some deceased man or woman a saint. The Catholic church has canonized around 3000 people. It requires extensive proof that the person proposed for canonization lived, and died, in such a way that he or she is worthy to be so recognized. They thus enter into the canon, or list, of recognized saints.
Canonization is currently practiced by the Catholic Church including the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, by the Eastern Orthodox Church (including the Russian Orthodox Church, and by the Oriental Orthodox Churches; (the Church of England does not rule out canonization, but it has only ever canonized one man: (Charles I of England).
The Catholic bible also includes the books of Thomas, and Mary Magdalene. Royalty ruled to extract these books from the King James Version of the Bible because in most cases they were too similar to other books already included.
Trinity +++0 -
The books chosen by the church were hand selected, It seems that any book that differed from the churches agenda was thrown out. Look it up the final cannonization of books for the KJB was less than 300 years ago.. The catholic church was the beginning of many of the "Christian SECTS" that exist today. Everyone had their own ideas about how it should be and should have been, Therefore I see no validity in any of them. 0 -
deju vu all over again. 0 -
Boy, it is easy to see that people will believe anything in order to NOT Believe the bible ... the Christian faith is rooted in HISTORY! In fact, history is His Story!
"hand selected" I'm not sure what that means. Actually the leaders of the early church followed very specific rules and questions for determining what was inspired by God and thus should be part of the Holy Bible. (Next thing we will hear is that the daVinci code is true and the Bible and the Church are wrong!)0 -
If you really want to know the facts surrounding Jesus and I mean scientific facts, go to http://www.leestrobel.com. Lee Stroble was the legal editor for a Chicago Newspaper. His wife became a believer and it really ticked him off so he decided to disprove the bible using the laws of evidence used in legal trials.
He became a beleiver through the process.0 -
Did any one see the Globe issue that had the 1st pictures from Hell... That was some awsome stuff there, let me tell you. Even had a few of Satans minions trying to hide in fiery furnice of red hot rocks...totally cool... 0 -
It wasnt until 1603 that the church began the translation of the 66 books found in the original bible, some books 24 of them were discarded. So cannonization started just some 400 years ago, and wasnt complete untill somewhere around 300 yrs ago.. Some 2000 years after the fact and no one can agree on anything written in the KJB, Even the passages in the KJB dispute one another.. Any other book with so many discrepencies people would just nod and say sure uh huh! What about all the new discoveries and parchments ? And as one poster said not long ago, GODS come and Go , so shall the present one evolve into another one..[;)]
http://www.tribulation.com/kjvbible.htm
Here is one site on the history of the KJB..0 -
...My God carries a hammer. Yours died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
.....Relax!...Just stirring...[}:)]0 -
I'm trying to figure out why anyone would care. Jesus was a historical figure, and intelligent people don't discount the fact that He was real and that He walked the earth.
So, if His tomb is found or not, it matters not. Nobody is trying to prove that Jesus existed. He did, that's factual.
What's open for debate is whether or not He is the Messiah. Finding His tomb has no bearing whatsoever to the answer to that question.0 -
Classic please explain.
"Everyone had their own ideas about how it should be and should have been"
"no one can agree on anything written in the KJB, Even the passages in the KJB dispute one another."
These are very broad statements to make without anything to back it up other than your own assertions. Just exactly what passages in the KJB dispute each other.
Trinity +++0 -
There is no Historical proof that Jesus existed. If there is Please provide it other than saying it is a fact.
Here is just a little thing that is also contrary to what the bible says..
Curiously, Since Jesus is frequently referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth," it is interesting to learn that the town now called Nazareth did not exist in the first centuries BCE and CE. Exhaustive archaeological studies have been done by Franciscans to prove the cave they possess was once the home of Jesus' family. But actually they have shown the site to have been a necropolis - a city of the dead - during the first century CE. (Naturally, the Franciscans cannot agree!) With no Nazareth other than a cemetery existing at the time, how could there have been a Jesus of Nazareth?0 -
I expected HAIRY to be the first to post on this subject. I'm starting to wonder what has happened to the boy.
The definitive DNA proof that the bodies found in the tomb were Jesus Christ and Marry Magdalene was the DNA shows the two people were not blood relatives, ergo it could be nobody other than Jesus Christ and Marry Magdalene.
If you accept that logic, it also proves Jesus Christ and Marry Magdalene were Man and Wife.
A bit of a stretch for me, but I have no doubt a lot of people will jump right on it. [:D]
Something similar to this comes up every Ash Wednesday.0 -
Once again the debate which cannot be won. One guy says "I dont think there is a God". The other guy "but I know Him". First guy says "I dont know him so you cant either, if I dont know him then he doesnt exist". Second guy; "Umm ok, but I still know Him". And on and on and on. So until with a pure heart, ones seeks the Lord, he connot come to know Him. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Classic095
There is no Historical proof that Jesus existed. If there is Please provide it other than saying it is a fact.
No problem.
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/
http://sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html0 -
Nice try but still no evidence other than someone saying so. There are no Historical Facts other than someone writing that Jesus existed. Jesus was a very common name of that time as was Mary John Luke etc.
I still find it strange that this man of such importance did not ever write anything. and it was some 50 to 80 years after his death that anyone wrote of him..
Even all the writers and scholars of his time never mentioned him except for a couple forged documents..
They Should Have Noticed
John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:
Josephus
Philo-Jud?us
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Ph?drus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
"Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles - increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.
Now that is quite a list of writers to not have noticed someone claiming to be so important..[;)]0 -
Personally I have know doubt that Jesus existed. His being God remains to be seen, death will give me that answer if I don't simply fade to black.... That being said...God or not Jesus is the man that each of us should strive to be. And to date he is the only man (since I've been a man) that I've allowed to do any of my thinking for me...I wonder if I let him do all my thinking for me, would I need a gun!!! There would seem, there is no defense, for self defense, in his eyes. That either makes me defiant or a coward, I've never really figured out which....Maybe both. 0 -
The lack of contemporary writing about him proves only that there are no known contemporary writings about him. There is only one other known document that mentions Pontius Pilate, from a different area and with a different title, but it does corroborate that the man existed. While the bible is not a very reliable historical document, I agree with Spanielsells, the man existed. I think it probable he was a classicly trained Essene Rabi, but there is really only conjecture on that. It also seems clear that he was a claimant to the throne of David. The word Messiah meant "king," and only later came to mean "savior." So the only real question is did "God so love the world that he sacrificed his only son to give us salvation from our sins?" 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
35 comments