Using the same methods to translate and the same level of credibility as the secularist lobby, the writing clearly states "Fred Jesus". Controversy over.
Posted on 01/17/2008 4:18:50 PM PST by blam
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Blam. To all, there were loads of topics about this program back at the time of airing. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Also gone were diagrams made by excavators that showed where each stone sarcophagus lay inside the tomb, and what the family relationships might have been, say, between Jesus and Mary Magdelene, who some speculate may have been his wife.
Didn't take TIME long to go from "mariamne" to "Mary Magdalene", as if that is FACT, rather than the speculation as stated in the first reference, making the 'speculation" into not 'Magdalene', but 'His wife'.
the possible discovery of Christ's tomb will illicit mixed reactions among Christians.
Fraudian slip showing?
Gat and two other archaeologists excavated the tomb, which had been vandalized centuries earlier.
By whom, and in what manner; and what effect does that have upon the entire 'interpretation'?
Why not? No penalties involved, since if they don't believe the fundamentals, they most certainly wouldn't believe in 'judgment starts at the Altar', either.
Take at look at what both Methodism has become in the last 30 or so years; and what Princeton Theological Seminary has turned into, since it was founded as a result of Harvard's school of theology (IIRC) becoming Liberal way back when.
Persons whose names were among the most common names of the time were buried there. How unlikely is that? /s
What the hell kind of question is that? It's not exactly the kind of thing the CSI crew can solve with the magic enhance button.
“”looks like it cost a TON of money to build that tomb even back then... i doubt Christ’s family was that rich.”
True. IIRC, Jesus was originally ‘buried’ in the tomb of a wealthy benefactor of the family.
To be expected from Time/CNN.
Here is as close to the ‘truth’ as we can get.
Jesus of Nazareth became Jesus the Christ, and upon the death of Jesus of Nazareth, maintained the physical form until Jesus the Christ ascended in appearance to heaven.
His body stayed here. Things on the material plane (redundant, I know) cannot be created or destroyed, so the body cannot just disappear from the material world.
Was Jesus dead and in the tomb? Yes. Jesus of Nazareth.
Was, and is.
This is most likely the tomb he was interred in, and the other’s may be his relatives, or some of Joseph’s.
Was Jesus reborn, resurrected from the cross, removed the stone, and appeared ‘in the flesh’ to the apostles?
Yes. Jesus Christ. He ‘ain’t’ the one in the tomb. I guarantee that.
Your “truth” is not necessarily the whole truth. Matter can change from one state to another. Ice changes to water to vapor.
If I were able to go into space, would my body disappear from the earth?
Anyone who wants to seriously evaluate the controversy about the Talpiot Tomb should read The Jesus Dynasty by James Tabor.
However, It discusses archeological finds and studies about a lot more issues about Jesus, his relatives, and his disciples than just the Talpiot tomb. You may not find it persuasive, but it is very interesting.
For those of you who make the point about common names of the era, for example, the book discusses some of the statistical reasons why although some of the names were common to the era, the combination of names including the names of Jesus’ brothers, etc. make a statistical argument for the tomb being the family tomb.
You can get some info from his website:
www.jesusdynasty.com/blog.
The kind that needs to be answered, in order to help correctly interpret what was in the tomb.
It is the kind of question that is relevant.
Was the apparent order of burials changed?
Was the "The name on Jesus's ossuary was scrawled on, like graffiti. There was no ornamentation. And there should have been. After all, his followers believed he was the Son of God." added to the ossuary soon after the burials (many centuries ago) to discredit the budding Christian movement?
Was it about seven or eight centuries later, by "Kilroy was here" Muslim tomb raiders?
Were the things found still pretty much as they originally were, and 'only' valuables taken, without disturbing the placement & order of the ossuaries themselves?
Plenty relevant to ask, as well as others, since there don't seem to be answers; but such missing answers could have large bearing on correctly interpretting what was found. Wrong/missing data = wrong conclussions.
You are correct.
But Jesus Christ didn’t go into space.
Moving something from one location to another is not the same as the spirit of Christ ascending to heaven.
I am only trying to point out that IF they found the physical body remains of Jesus of Nazareth, it doesn’t mean Jesus Christ didn’t ascend to heaven.
Thanks!
It's much the same problem as with Egyptian tombs. where explorers usually find that grave-robbers were there long before. That's why King Tut got so much hype, and still does 80-some years later; it was a rare case where the grave was found as the builders left it.
Because the tomb is relatively undisturbed, closed off from the elements, it's actually pretty feasible to get a decent approximation of when and how it was disturbed last. I fired off my question too quickly, without thinking it all the way through.
I'll just toss in that even if the tomb is found by some scholars to contain Jesus' bones -- which, last I heard, seems highly unlikely -- that doesn't invalidate Christianity. It doesn't even do much damage to the claim that He ascended bodily into heaven; the counter-argument is that he ascended in a new, perfected body, leaving the old one behind --as the rest of us are promised one day, at least in some readings of the Gospels.
Was the "The name on Jesus's ossuary was scrawled on, like graffiti. There was no ornamentation. And there should have been. After all, his followers believed he was the Son of God." added to the ossuary soon after the burials (many centuries ago) to discredit the budding Christian movement?
The questions: and I don't know enough about the Jewis funerary practices at the time, is whether any tomb would have such adornments; the ornaments might have been left austere for religious or cultural reasons. Remember also that Jesus' followers were not wealthy, and if there wasn't a disciple close by who happened to be a stone mason, they might have had to make do with a DIY job.
Another possibility is that the ossuary was prepared for Jessu' bones, but after his body disappeared, it was reused for someone else; the original Christians were not wealthy people, after all.
Of course, the leading possibility is that the grave has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus -- He wasn't the only Yeshua who died in the Jerusalem area around that time frame. It would be like archaeologists a thousand years hence finding the grave of a "George" in northern Virginia and concluding they'd found Washington's remains.
This is fun. Check out Acts 1:9, “And when he had spoken these things,while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.”
Using the same methods to translate and the same level of credibility as the secularist lobby, the writing clearly states "Fred Jesus". Controversy over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.