Where are the remains of Jesus of Nazareth?

[Saint Frankenstein]

His glorified resurrected body is in Heaven, of course. Glory to God!

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

I don't think you know that a census did not happen. Why do you think that? Your other point sounds like a conclusion drawn from speculation. If you can't explain your reasoning for your speculations, then they are merely just someone speculating, as I said, no reason to refute.
Merely declaring something, or an appeal to some authority, is not an argument.

Because the Romans kept a record of every census and there was no census at the time. Secondly, the manner in which censuses were conducted was well documented by the Romans as well. They didn't call you out of town so you could go to them and lie about what you had. They came to your house to see what you had and that is how they conducted censuses. And there was no census near the time of the birth of Jesus. That's is how we know.

All the best,
Gary

 

[paarsurrey]

His glorified resurrected body is in Heaven, of course. Glory to God!

Then why question Jesus' remains? Is the OP in doubt?
Regards

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Then why question Jesus' remains? Is the OP in doubt?
Regards

I think he's asking for non-Christians to give their opinion on it.

 

[Koldo]

"It is strong clue. Empty tomb did not tell that Jesus ascended to sky. It is a wrong notion."

As a matter of fact we have eyewitness testimony that Jesus both rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. It is the correct notion.

And the testimony is in the bible. And the bible is accurate because it is written in the bible that it is accurate, right ?

 

[paarsurrey]

I think he's asking for non-Christians to give their opinion on it.

I think the OP is in doubt, like the "doubting Thomas".
Regards

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

So you say. And yet you could be wrong. This is mere speculation, and not even good speculation at that ,imo.

Good Evening Q Konn: Actually, I think you're getting your terminology mixed up. I am not speculating, I am deducing. Much in the same way that if I stick a 5 foot pole into the water until it reaches the bottom and two feet remain above water, I would be deducing that the water is 3 fee deep. When the authors of the gospels say things that don't match what we know historically about the Jewish culture, the Romans and the history of first century Palestine, we can deduce that the majority, I repeat majority of bible scholars are correct in concluding that the gospel writers had an agenda other than reporting events as they occurred. Bible scholars can also deduce that because people of Jesus' and the apostles' class could neither read or write, and that because the gospels were written between 70 and 110 CE, they were not written by anyone who ever met Jesus. From this we can accordingly deduce that they are not eyewitness accounts. In the time that the gospels were written it was a common practice for texts to be what is called pseudonymous, which means written with a pen name that is often the name of someone whose oral tradition has been handed down.

To speculate, however, is to engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence, such as believing gospel accounts verbatim that are in direct conflict with history, written records, and common sense or practical experience. Therefore I am deducing that your assertion that I am speculating could be the result of your computer screen having too highly reflective a surface.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

I don't think you know that a census did not happen. Why do you think that?
.

Because the Romans kept tight records of everything they did, and there was no census. Also because we know the Romans did censuses in order to obtain wealth and inviting the hundred or so dirt poor families from Nazareth to a census would have been a waste of time. Nazareth wasn't even on the maps of the time. It was a fringe outpost inhabited by day workers and handymen who travelled to nearby towns to work each day. And because the Romans did not have a practice of calling you away out of town for a census. That would have killed productivity in the region for months (because they didn't have cars and planes and trains and buses, so travel was by foot or by mule). Killing productivity in turn would have cut into profits from taxes because there would be less to tax.

Merely declaring something, or an appeal to some authority, is not an argument.
.

No, it isn't, but I had rather thought it was the other way around. I had thought that I was thinking for myself based on my own studies and that you were coming to the heal of what religious authorities have told you to believe without having delved too far into the sources of what they've told you to believe. That said, what authority do you think I am appealing to?

All the best
Gary

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

Again, appeal to authority, it's not an argument. Many authors, people who some call ''experts'' etc. are biased, make mistakes, etc. This is why an appeal to authority is not an argument in the first place. You have to provide more than some vaguely stated ideas about what Jewish people were doing in Roman occupied Israel, and what they weren't. And btw, if you are correct, then Jesus would not have existed either? /working on the Shabbat etc.

Yes, it is speculation.

Again, and as I stated in my last reply, I think you may want to step back and reassess who is and who is not appealing to authority. If you are operating from fact, then you should be able to tell me where the copies of the gospels that you posit were penned by the apostles are. Where are they located? Who has them? What language are they written in?

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

Nope. This is not about ''authority''. We would do this with any similar type of text.

You said I was appealing to authority and now you say it's not about authority. It's somewhat difficult to follow your line of thinking.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

You don't know what I think, and why I think it.



The issue is context. A narrative, the NT, is a religious text that has historical notations, etc. We read it for what it is, then speculate on verses, whatever. The 'basis' of the accepted validity, is the text itself. Now , since the text is not proposed as fiction, it is on someone to prove or demonstrate beyond doubt that, that a verse is false, etc. Now, when someone attempts to do this, it is with the intent of doing so, hence /bias/ btw religious people do this all the time, it isn't just secular people, anyways, what this ''purpose'' leaves open, is a propensity for speculation that utilizes such things as confirmation bias, awkward religious comparisons,/ ex.modern Judaism to pre-Talmudic Hebraic belief,/ etc. There are many problems associated with this sort of scholarly speculation, which is why the arguments have to be more than merely an appeal to authority. It's nothing against your beliefs, it's just the way it is, if the debate or dialogue is going to be coherent. If you aren't interested in that , great, like I said, I'm not here to convince you of anything.

So , if I am correct, it is not a matter of who wrote the gospels and whether or not they are accurate or true accounts, but more a matter of how you speculate on verses. You go on to say that because the texts are not presented as fiction that it is incumbent on anyone who refutes their veracity to prove that they are not accurate. I have given you some well reasoned examples and you haven't replied to one point with a direct counterpoint except to say that everything counter to a literal acceptance of the gospels is speculation. What you need are counterpoints. Tell me for instance, why one gospel says the Holy family fled to Egypt and another says they hung around town and then went home to Nazareth. The gospels aren't even in agreement with each other, much less history. So let's nail down one point. Which gospel author had the Egypt narrative wrong? The one who says they went to Egypt or the one who says they stayed in Palestine? Remember, the one who says they stayed in Palestine didn't simply not mention Egypt - he went into detail about what the Holy Family did instead. Address that directly if you would. Once you explain that, I have a few dozen more examples I would like explained.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

Why? I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The onus is no you if you want to disprove an assertion in the text. then, it would be something religious, or something non-religious /like traveling to Bethlehem/. If your argument is merely that it is all fiction, then great, but that isn't a convincing argument.

Let me pose the question differently. What would it take to convince you that anything whatsoever in the bible is inaccurate or false? What would you consider proof that it is inaccurate or false? I think we both know the answer.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

Are you saying that because the Gospels do not match perfectly, that all are false?

Well, you could always appeal to the multiverse theory. There was a universe where the Holy family fled to Egypt, and another where they didn't and another where Judas died one way, and another where Judas dies another, and another where the Sanhedrin met at night and at Passover, and the one we live in where they didn't, and another where Pilate was a kindly and just man who tried to save Jesus and the one we live in where he was a bloodthirsty tyrant who loved killing Jews. That is the only alternative to one or all of them being untrue. Unless you can think of another.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Please list names of the witnesses , their antecedents and other information about them.
Regards

Doesn't matter. Hearsay is believed because of other hearsay that said it was true, and so on. Add millennia and stir.

 

[paarsurrey]

Remains of Jesus would be found where Jesus went after his treatment in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea and where he lived thereafter and died.

A strong clue from Bible:
Doubt of Jesus' having died on the cross was expressed very much at the scene of the Cross.

Pilate marveled

And Pilate marveled if he were already dead. (Mark 15: 44)

When Pilate was informed about the death of Jesus on the cross, he marveled at hearing it. We know that Pilate was the most experienced person in this field; who may have experienced hundreds of crucifixions in his time. That is why; he knew very it well that a 33 years, unmarried young person shouldn’t die in few hours, while the other two thieves (elder than him) were still alive after the crucifixion.

So, Jesus journeyed elsewhere, hence the empty tomb.

Regards

 

[columbus]

A strong clue from Bible:
Doubt of Jesus' having died on the cross was expressed very much at the scene of the Cross.

You seem to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to find credible. If you believe the implausible accounts about Pilate why not the accounts of Jesus' death on the Cross?
Tom

 

[First Baseman]

Remains of Jesus would be found where Jesus went after his treatment in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea and where he lived thereafter and died.

A strong clue from Bible:
Doubt of Jesus' having died on the cross was expressed very much at the scene of the Cross.

Pilate marveled

And Pilate marveled if he were already dead. (Mark 15: 44)

When Pilate was informed about the death of Jesus on the cross, he marveled at hearing it. We know that Pilate was the most experienced person in this field; who may have experienced hundreds of crucifixions in his time. That is why; he knew very it well that a 33 years, unmarried young person shouldn’t die in few hours, while the other two thieves (elder than him) were still alive after the crucifixion.

So, Jesus journeyed elsewhere, hence the empty tomb.

Regards

You're ignoring the rest of Mark 15:44 and Mark 15:45 as well.

In context:

44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.

45 And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.


So when the centurion had confirmed that Jesus was dead he gave the body to Joseph.

I'm not going to read that entire thread but I do hope someone corrected this assumption about Mark 15:44.

 

[paarsurrey]

Still another clue for Jesus' remains:
THE JESUS THANGKA
A thangka (pronounced with the h silent) is the traditional form of religious painting produced by Buddhist monks for centuries in the Himalayas.

Note the scars in hands of Jesus
Courtesy
Abhijith's Knols
https://abhijithmarathakam.wordpress.com/article/jesus-in-india-fact-or-flaw-33u5226e1zr9g-8/

Regards

 

[columbus]

Note scars in hands of Jesus

They are exactly like the ones that the boy behind Him has.
Perhaps that is a way to show palm creases in that artistic style.
Tom

 

[First Baseman]

They are exactly like the ones that the boy behind Him has.
Perhaps that is a way to show palm creases in that artistic style.
Tom

Good eye.

It also appears to me that someone doctored it up a bit to make the face and hair look more like what the artist thought Jesus looked like.