Can this be anything other than what it appears to be?

[NulliuSINverba]

... it appears you completely missed the point of the OP, or more likely, didn't read it at all.

Your conclusion is erroneous. I read it. And the linked story.

 

[Desert Snake]

The physical resurrection was apparently backed into to the canon (over the earlier belief about resurrection by Jesus' original followers) when it was "determined" by committee/force in the 4th century, while the rest was discarded by force.

....So? There is a rock with some carvings on it, that's not enough to make me argue about the nature of the Biblical ascension.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Your conclusion is erroneous. I read it. And the linked story.

So then the "apparently missed the point" applies, as does the definition of glib. Since you make no argument against it at all based on what you read or anything, just a quick, dismissive comment, what other conclusion can I draw?

....So? There is a rock with some carvings on it, that's not enough to make me argue about the nature of the Biblical ascension.

The façade is only the cover of the book, and there's a story behind that as well.

 

[Muffled]

I believe people only look for the living among the dead because they do not wish to believe that He is alive.

 

[Muffled]

I fear that it doesn't matter how certain archeologists are that this is the tomb of the Nazarene. The majority of people simply won't accept it.

I believe there is a great deal of slip between the cup and the lip. It is about as preposterous as evolutionists thinking that they are certain.

 

[Nietzsche]

I believe people only look for the living among the dead because they do not wish to believe that He is alive.

...or there are people who're skeptical about that whole "rise from the dead" thing. You know, because we have no reason to believe or even assume that's possible. Just saying. You don't believe in Faeries, but I don't see anyone saying that's because you don't want to.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I believe people only look for the living among the dead because they do not wish to believe that He is alive.

People only look for the living among the dead???

 

[Barrackubus]

With the decades old discovery of the burial site of the alledged "holy family" being discovered. I hearby announce the death of Christianity as we not only know it now, but also for generations of the future, and if not the complete obsoletion of it and some of the tenants of the faith shall remain but only with a completely new face change. Even with the extreme possibility that may have been a family with only duplicate names, i can only ask, How often does that really occur? and still yet what was the significance of Jesus in that specific family, and can you find me another family in part of the world with those names, is their any other remains that also bear any inscription to another Jesus on another grave. This becomes very compelling, because that alone carries alot of weight, people often put these types of words on grave markers, Beloved Husband and Father is a seemingly popular inscription in my part of the world and maybe yours too, but it is only now these too become important, simply because that is how the deceased wants to be remembered by, those words became a hallmark of that specific life and may have been felt by all they may have encountered? James the brother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Mary, Joseph and someone named Jesus all laid to rest together to sleep throughout history, all right under our noses.s
what do these allegations tell us about Christianity and the future of, the apostle Paul said it best when he penned ....that if Christ not be risen from the dead, all your preaching in vain.

So much vain throughout history, so many tresspasses and crimes against humanity all for a dead man that was supposed to be risen from the dead, now imagine for just a moment how much better it would have been or will be without this paradigm, how much damage, propaganda, slaughterings etc...

The whole morality structure would shift drastically. Things would have been different very much like had Adolph Hitler not exsisted, I mean hey didnt he pilfer through millions of lives all to tiressley prove a paradigm that could not exsist. He believed and so did many others, and just because you believe something to be true and you have others who also say they believe something doesn't make it anymore true. The truth is that if the Jesus box had not been in that tomb, they would inturn be rallying these great and scientific minds in charge of all this evidence.....they'd be dancing in the streets counting the days, but because Jesus is there....it isnt good for him to be there.

Just imagine for the moment the amount of freedom that could IS eminemtly available right now knowing this has just occured, the fact that the freedom restriciting, non practical non exsistent paradigm is as Paul said all in vain had not the Ressurection had not taken place....well taking a look here a little closer, it can be said that assencion did not occur...

The latter is based upon interpertation and take on the Jesus story, maybe he was a bit more, no a lot more Eastern in his doctrine than previously thought, some of those Eastern Doctrine specifically forbidden against in the Old Testament surrounding magick. Jesus was that, an adept magician and maybe all this ressurection talk was about this abyssal crossing and being reunited with his specific HGA.

Who knows, maybe the Kabbalistical and magickal formula found within the former writings of the Old Testement had a much different impact upon Jesus and he begin to be enlightented away from such a path of absolution, maybe the whole story is wrong or misguided, this and many other controversial events that Christians seems to lawyer away has had its fill and it seems a major face change and reinvention of itself is very much needed in order to survive such a harsh religious global environment.

And then I remember the myths propagandated throughout my life time, that rock n' roll was dangerous, homosexuals were most likely to be child sex offenders, and having an abortion betters a womans chance to get cancer or limit her reproductive ability later on, how anything different or not like what they thought it should be, even other religions all of them as being Satanic or Evil, look a lot of good is going to come out of this, just let it die, wither away slowly it was a day that had its due and it is here....Christianity dies and so does any idea of Lucifer, Satan evil, demonic or being sinful or of sin, or the idea of having to pay a price for or the mythical idea that someone else did. Racist groups like the Klu Klux Klan would have to moralize their racist agenda with something other than the Bible. The morality structure may shift in the direction it wants to go a time of do what thou wilt, there is no sin in being human especially when the Christ died like one.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Christianity dies and so does any idea of Lucifer, Satan evil, demonic or being sinful or of sin, or the idea of having to pay a price for or the mythical idea that someone else did. Racist groups like the Klu Klux Klan would have to moralize their racist agenda with something other than the Bible. The morality structure may shift in the direction it wants to go a time of do what thou wilt, there is no sin in being human especially when the Christ died like one.

I particularly like this last part, though we must remember that we are still able to choose to do evil to others.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes, but you're thinking reasonably. The fact is that so many Christian sects indoctrinate their charges to believe that he did ascent bodily. After all, the Apostle's Creed states that "I believe in the resurrection of the body". God how many times I recited that in unison. And I said "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church". I even asked my pastor about that when I was young. I don't remember his answer, only that it was involved and that it wasn't convincing. Yes, I know it means "universal".



No it doesn't, but Truth does; something that Muslims play very fast and very loose with. But then Islam is about submission after all, not freedom. So why do you attempt to imply that you value freedom.

We have been saying all along that Jesus is not God, or part of a trinity.

The Bible doesn't say he is God, nor does it say there is a trinity.

The Nicene Councils silenced the people that had the truth, - that he was just a man, - a special teacher.

However, they couldn't prove the tomb and contents were real the first time, and they won't be able to prove it this time either.

*

 

[Barrackubus]

Although they may not substaintially prove that the remakns was the Messiah but there is enough evidence to just let go of it and be okaay. Look I understand the emotional need to be enslaved to that system of belief and their are greater things waiting for mankind than the eventual might be. We need to focus on each other and not try and moralize people with a system that is at best non practical, non scientific and unrealistic, it may have come time to look beyond that structure and realign some values that may not have been essential that until now all of a sudden everything is. It is now okay to question the whole system and come up with different answers, its okay and is only natural to do so.It makes no advatage to continue on when the advantages of letting it whither away are even of a greater value, a new enlightment of humanity in such a shift that it could quite possibly stir another age of reasoning and enlightment a new system a newer and fairer structure of spirituality...the possibilities are endless the change towrds a more fraternal society is within our graps, once all this Jesus myth finally rests in the much needed it peace it will bring to our world and our future generations.

 

[Shad]

Dr. Tabor's blog contains a link to today's NY Times story about the profound new evidence concerning the so-called Jesus tomb in the east Jerusalem community of Talpiot. In my opinion, this is the smoking gun:

Breaking News: The Controversial James Ossuary and the Talpiot Tomb | TaborBlog

He also includes some useful summary information and links. Tabor's working partner at the Mt. Zion dig in Jerusalem, Shimon Gibson, was apparently the first to say that the James ossuary wasn't the missing one from the tomb, and that the James ossuary was probably an 11th one that was removed at some point before the discovery of the tomb, in 1980.

So, given the only credible arguments against the tomb being Jesus', the fact that they were common names (which had pretty much be negated before this came along and essentially demolished it); or that the "Jesus" on the James' ossuary was faked, which an 8 year long trial exposed as being completely unsubstantiated, and in one case a canard itself, are there any other arguments left besides pointing to scripture--which isn't an argument based on reason? How can it now not be what it appears to be?

BTW, Dr Tabor, the biblical historian on the team with archaeologist, Gibson, has maintained that the early Christians (i.e. Jews) didn't believe in bodily resurrection. He includes Paul with that idea, and he may be right, but I think the jury is still out.

Sorry the Times lacked the couth of publishing this story at some other time than on Easter. On the other hand, more people take notice this way.

Read the article, the research is unpublished. If one cares about the peer-review process then this is enough to take the position of neutrality or to hold to the older published and review findings. For myself I will wait.

I would also point out Simcha Jacobovici claims, repeated in this thread, have no credibility.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Read the article, the research is unpublished. If one cares about the peer-review process then this is enough to take the position of neutrality or to hold to the older published and review findings. For myself I will wait.

I applaud your caution and wish the academics who are recoiling at this information would use similar restraint instead of repeating or manufacturing unfounded assertions over and over again--particularly the "they're all common names" argument. Tabor recently put up this summarizing blog on the subject: http://jamestabor.com/2015/04/16/the-jesus-tomb-story-does-the-evidence-add-up/

Tabor's "100% or virtual certainty" sums things up nicely. The pieces have fallen into place, some of which weren't expected, like #2, Mary the Magdalene. That she was likely Jesus' Gentile (formerly pagan?) wealthy wife and sponsor, is the source of much apoplexy for some as the evidence congeals.

I would also point out Simcha Jacobovici claims, repeated in this thread, have no credibility.

Which claims in particular could you point to as having no credibility? Simcha doesn't pull his punches as scholars do, and as such function as a lighting rod and thus getting more attention pro & con. But I've found him to be right or at least reasonable nearly all of the time. His latest book with Prof. Barrie, The Lost Gospel, is loaded with ground breaking and even seminal information, mixed in with some pretty far out speculation--but speculation which can't be dismissed out of hand. BTW, the information on Mary the Magdalene in The Lost Gospel fits nicely with the evidence from her ossuary, especially the fact that its inscription is the only one in Greek.

 

[Shad]

I applaud your caution and wish the academics who are recoiling at this information would use similar restraint instead of repeating or manufacturing unfounded assertions over and over again--particularly the "they're all common names" argument. Tabor recently put up this summarizing blog on the subject: http://jamestabor.com/2015/04/16/the-jesus-tomb-story-does-the-evidence-add-up/

I have little interest in what a non-expert has to say. His views are only based on those views he accepts from actual experts. In which a movie producer Simcha Jacobovici is the source of this name. Which he sourced from novels like The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.

Tabor's "100% or virtual certainty" sums things up nicely. The pieces have fallen into place, some of which weren't expected, like #2, Mary the Magdalene. That she was likely Jesus' Gentile (formerly pagan?) wealthy wife and sponsor, is the source of much apoplexy for some as the evidence congeals.

Mary Magdalene are assertion only from a film not from a actually study. This names are additions, nothing more. The source for this name is the one above. The names on the objects is just a name. People are already speculating beyond what the data even suggests. All we can take is the data by the names. I could develop my own wide ranging ideas based on the minimal of data. Hence why I will wait and see when actually studies are released.

The story is interesting but the speculation just over the topic borders from the conservative to fringe radical. No just for the links you provided by in the general population. There are many issues with this finding dating back years but that is for another thread.

Which claims in particular could you point to as having no credibility? Simcha doesn't pull his punches as scholars do, and as such function as a lighting rod and thus getting more attention pro & con. But I've found him to be right or at least reasonable nearly all of the time. His latest book with Prof. Barrie, The Lost Gospel, is loaded with ground breaking and even seminal information, mixed in with some pretty far out speculation--but speculation which can't be dismissed out of hand. BTW, the information on Mary the Magdalene in The Lost Gospel fits nicely with the evidence from her ossuary, especially the fact that its inscription is the only one in Greek.

The articles you linked for one. One is from a non-expert that cites another non-expert that reliable on fiction novels as his source. Also there is no peer-reviewed studies. When one rushes to a paper before producing their finding while using words as 100% certain it should that the person lacks professionalism and is directed by confirmation bias. If you want to take the opinion from people that have no formal training in archaeology that is fine but me. However I will follow what my actual peers have to say over non-experts talking about a subject beyond their scope and education.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I have little interest in what a non-expert has to say. His views are only based on those views he accepts from actual experts. In which a movie producer Simcha Jacobovici is the source of this name. Which he sourced from novels like The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.

Yet you make such assertions and even conclusions:

Mary Magdalene are assertion only from a film not from a actually study. This names are additions, nothing more. The source for this name is the one above. The names on the objects is just a name. People are already speculating beyond what the data even suggests. All we can take is the data by the names. I could develop my own wide ranging ideas based on the minimal of data. Hence why I will wait and see when actually studies are released.

There is a lot more to the assertions than the film, The Lost Gospel being the latest source, the Bible and Gnostic texts being some others.

The story is interesting but the speculation just over the topic borders from the conservative to fringe radical. No just for the links you provided by in the general population. There are many issues with this finding dating back years but that is for another thread.

One is from a non-expert that cites another non-expert that reliable on fiction novels as his source. Also there is no peer-reviewed studies. When one rushes to a paper before producing their finding while using words as 100% certain it should that the person lacks professionalism and is directed by confirmation bias. If you want to take the opinion from people that have no formal training in archaeology that is fine but me. However I will follow what my actual peers have to say over non-experts talking about a subject beyond their scope and education.

Your continuing red herring with the fiction, which I assume you're referring to The Da Vinci Code, has not been used as a source of anyone I read, other than to mention in it passing.

What do you mean, "my actual peers"? I think your stake in all this just became obvious.

 

[JustCallMeNick]

People will just decide that Jesus did not need to ascend in body. They have decided less likely things.

JWs already believe this, actually. They say his resurrection was only spiritual.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

JWs already believe this, actually. They say his resurrection was only spiritual.

James Tabor has already made that case in his book and blogs, even saying the Paul believed that. Not sure his ground is that firm on Paul, but nonetheless, it's a move in the right direction.

 

[Willamena]

Obviously, if a thing appears to be other than what it appears to be, then the question isn't answerable.

 

[JustCallMeNick]

James Tabor has already made that case in his book and blogs, even saying the Paul believed that. Not sure his ground is that firm on Paul, but nonetheless, it's a move in the right direction.

I'm reading Richard Carrier's book, "On The Historicity of Jesus," and he makes a similar point. It is notable that Paul's epistles contain virtually none of the biographical information about Jesus we see in the Gospels. The only points of connection that would later be couched in history by the Gospels are the crucifixion and resurrection. Carrier argues that in original Pauline/Christian thought the crucifixion and resurrection occurred not on earth but in the heavens. I'm not done with the book yet, but I'll probably make a thread once I am.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Obviously, if a thing appears to be other than what it appears to be, then the question isn't answerable.

Don't guess you'd care to put that statement in some sort of context.

I'm reading Richard Carrier's book, "On The Historicity of Jesus," and he makes a similar point. It is notable that Paul's epistles contain virtually none of the biographical information about Jesus we see in the Gospels. The only points of connection that would later be couched in history by the Gospels are the crucifixion and resurrection. Carrier argues that in original Pauline/Christian thought the crucifixion and resurrection occurred not on earth but in the heavens. I'm not done with the book yet, but I'll probably make a thread once I am.

The reason Paul avoided as much Jesus bio as possible is because he wanted to meld him with Helios/Apollo/Mithras and away from his Judaism with all those messy Jewish laws which turned off so many pagans. I mean circumcision alone....