|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 30, 2007 13:24:11 GMT -4
How many of them use the name Jesus in their writings?
Yes. As I stated earlier, history is replete with ordinary humans who claimed to be or were claimed to be divine. All the others were false. Why should I see this one as true?
The burden of proof is not on me. I am not claiming evidence of a supernatural power.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 13:28:11 GMT -4
I didn't ask where the burden of proof rested, I asked what your objections are.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 13:57:19 GMT -4
At the time Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species there were already many other books that speculated where animals had come from and why they were so different. Why was Darwin's book and theories eventually accepted as the most correct? Because others thought through his arguments and decided they were credible.
Why are Jesus' sayings so popular, and why do so many regard him as the Son of God? Because they have thought through his sayings, applied them in their lives, and therefore decided they are credible.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 30, 2007 14:16:30 GMT -4
And why are Muhammad's sayings so popular, and why do so many regard him as God's Final Prophet? Because they have thought through his sayings, applied them in their lives, and therefore decided they are credible.
The logic works equally well for both.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 14:30:09 GMT -4
Yes it does. So why do you accept neither?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 30, 2007 14:37:08 GMT -4
It works for any religion with believers who believe. Should I accept them all?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 14:46:16 GMT -4
Well, they obviously can't all be correct, but that doesn't prove they're all wrong either.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 14:51:51 GMT -4
Well, I think I've hijacked Ginnie's thread for long enough. I suggest moving this discussion over to the "Religion - Bad or Good" thread instead.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 30, 2007 14:52:51 GMT -4
This is kind of a Jesus Myth thread question -- did you see the James Cameron-produced "Jesus Tomb" documentary? What are your thoughts about it? I don't know if it has come up elsewhere here, so I apologize if it has.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 30, 2007 15:04:35 GMT -4
I do think that determining what we actually know about the biography of Jesus is important to the question of whether there are similarities between Jesus and the mythic figures that came before him.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 15:09:23 GMT -4
I did not see the actual "Jesus Tomb" documentary but I did research the issue a bit. I concluded that there was no real solid evidence to identify the person buried in that tomb with Jesus of Nazereth other than a similarity of names. As neither Jesus, Joseph, nor Mary were particularly unnusual names at the time, a mere similarity in names is not much to go on, and the biblical account has Jesus being buried in a borrowed tomb, not a family crypt.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 30, 2007 15:28:21 GMT -4
It seemed like within a few days it was being called a hoax. Do you think it was a hoax or was it maybe worth a little more consideration? I honestly don't know.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 15:55:38 GMT -4
I don't see any problem with the ossuaries actually bearing those names, so I see no reason to assume they are forgeries. The discovery itself is therefore not a hoax.
I don't think it actually is Jesus' tomb, though - that is, the Biblical Jesus of Nazareth.
The documentary and book are kind of a hoax, in that they claim a lot on very little evidence with the obvious motivation of making a profit from sales, so you might call them "a hoax".
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 30, 2007 16:01:25 GMT -4
I think it's been determined that it wasn't genuine. First of all, the names were so common (Joseph, Mary, James, Jeshua etc.). I forget a lot of the details about this but it was way too convenient for it to be real. From Wikipedia ( I know, I know, but it sure is convenient to use - and don't bet your life on the information): The tomb was originally discovered in 1980 during a housing construction project. Ten ossuaries were found in the cave, including the six that are the subject of Jacobovici's film. However, one of the ten ossuaries went missing years ago, presumably stolen. "In their movie they are billing it as 'never before reported information,' but it is not new. I published all the details in the Antiqot journal in 1996, and I didn't say it was the tomb of Jesus' family," said Amos Kloner, now professor of archaeology at Israel's Bar-Ilan University and author of the original excavation report for the predecessor of the Israel Antiquities Authority.[2] "I think it is very unserious work. I do scholarly work…," Kloner said. "[This film] is all nonsense."[2] EDIT- Hey, they found another one! www.tombofjesus.com/2007/home.htmlIt's unfortunate for you guys that I can sit on the fence so much on this topic. Since I'm not bound by any beliefs I don't have to commit to anything. But I do want to find out the truth. f wdmundt keeps it up he may even convince me yet.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 30, 2007 16:23:28 GMT -4
Of what?
|
|