Page 24 of 60 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 591

Thread: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has virtually unequivocal evidence[W:577]

  1. #231
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:21 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,594

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
    That's what novices who have little in-depth knowledge of the Bible often claim. But believe it if you want.
    Ouch.. "Novice".. Switching from to circulus in probando to ad hominem.

    Must be one of those mysteries of the faith which can't possibly be explained, only believed.

  2. #232
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:30 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,896

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Ouch.. "Novice".. Switching from to circulus in probando to ad hominem.

    Must be one of those mysteries of the faith which can't possibly be explained, only believed.
    It wasn't an ad hominem but an observation that most skeptics I've encountered really haven't spent a lot of time in in-depth study of the scriptures. Quite a few of them have never read the Bible, much less studied it in depth.

    For instance, how many books on "Christ in the Old Testament" have you read? Have you read the basics, like this one?

    f851c2befc8900ce226b356bc088b8c2.jpg

    The more you study that Bible the more you will see how beautifully interconnected it is.
    Last edited by Logicman; 04-10-15 at 03:28 PM.
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

  3. #233
    Antichrist
    zgoldsmith23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    07-18-17 @ 11:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
    There's no archaeological or early manuscript evidence for that. But it's called the 'Q' theory, which had some initial support by liberal theologians, but which has now been largely refuted.

    If they did all match exactly the argument would be they all copied from one or more sources. But there is a certain 'Harmony' of the Gospels. Here's a link on the Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts.

    Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

    Nope. When you get Jesus you'll probably get a good dose of the Holy Spirit too. He's very real indeed.
    No 'Q' Theory is a theory of investment. You're thinking of Q source. And no, it has not been 'largely refuted,' there is both a case for and against it, as many historical debates.

    And if they matched, that would lend to the idea that maybe the stories were true. And no, there's not harmony, there is some broad overlap. For instance, the Virgin Birth mentioned in 2 of the 4 gospels. Well that's a pretty damn big deal when you're talking about someone supposedly divine. And how about the other inconsistencies not only in the gospels but between other books in the Bible?

    I don't know what you're trying to say here. Was Jesus real? Probably. I wouldn't doubt there was a man named Jesus in the area at this time. I don't doubt there's a guy named Robert in San Francisco right now, either. (Although, he probably pronounces it like Roe-bear ) He could've been crucified by Pilate, etc. but (paraphrasing from the late Christopher Hitchens), 'I could grant you that, and you'd still have all of your work ahead of you.' Why? Because it doesn't matter if he existed. What matters is was he divine.
    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I've never denied my own hackish tendencies
    Quote Originally Posted by Pin dÁr View Post
    scientific by itself isn't enough of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by blaxshep View Post
    Not all Nazis were bad people

  4. #234
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 08:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
    It wasn't an ad hominem but an observation that most skeptics I've encountered really haven't spent a lot of time in in-depth study of the scriptures. Quite a few of them have never read the Bible, much less studied it in depth.

    For instance, how many books on "Christ in the Old Testament" have you read? Have you read the basics, like this one?

    The more you study that Bible the more you will see how beautifully interconnected it is.
    You're much more familiar with the subject than me and though was once a cynic am less so now. Like many others I've seen evidence that there is more to this life than yes or no and, as usual, Shakespeare gave mention to this conundrum many of us face.

    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

  5. #235
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    02-18-17 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,828

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Oh indubitably, for very obvious reasons. If you've ever read any of the similar writings at the time that were rejected for canonisation, many laughs.
    Thus the peer review

  6. #236
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:30 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,896

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    No 'Q' Theory is a theory of investment. You're thinking of Q source. And no, it has not been 'largely refuted,' there is both a case for and against it, as many historical debates.
    Some call it Q Source and some call it what it really is - the Q Theory, and one for which there is zero historical, archaeological, or traditional evidence for.

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    And if they matched, that would lend to the idea that maybe the stories were true. And no, there's not harmony, there is some broad overlap. For instance, the Virgin Birth mentioned in 2 of the 4 gospels. Well that's a pretty damn big deal when you're talking about someone supposedly divine.
    That's a bad example against there being harmony for the simple reason that the other two Gospels (Mark and John) begin their Gospels when Jesus is fully grown.

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    And how about the other inconsistencies not only in the gospels but between other books in the Bible?
    Listen, you get four eyewitnesses in a court of law and think they'll all agree 100%? I don't think so.

    But they all confirm the resurrection. So when they do all agree on something you still won't believe it, right?

    You're taking the view that if they don't agree 100% then that's inconsistencies or contradictions. It's neither. Instead they're complementary.

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    What matters is was he divine.
    Anyone who declares in advance that he is going to be killed, and then three days later raises HIMSELF from the dead like he prophesied, and pulls it off, gets my vote.
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

  7. #237
    Antichrist
    zgoldsmith23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    07-18-17 @ 11:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
    Some call it Q Source and some call it what it really is - the Q Theory, and one for which there is zero historical, archaeological, or traditional evidence for.

    That's a bad example against there being harmony for the simple reason that the other two Gospels (Mark and John) begin their Gospels when Jesus is fully grown.

    Listen, you get four eyewitnesses in a court of law and think they'll all agree 100%? I don't think so.

    But they all confirm the resurrection. So when they do all agree on something you still won't believe it, right?

    You're taking the view that if they don't agree 100% then that's inconsistencies or contradictions. It's neither. Instead they're complementary.

    Anyone who declares in advance that he is going to be killed, and then three days later raise HIMSELF from the dead like he prophesied, and pulls it off, gets my vote.
    I mean, the gospel according to Luke starts off by saying he's aware of other accounts of the of Jesus. So using what you consider evidence, there's evidence of Luke being aware of other accounts.

    So they begin when he's grown? Didn't think to mention it? 'Oh, by the way, this fella was somehow conceived without even a turkey baster.' I mean, something. If you're writing a story about a divine character, that's something to add in. (See: other religious icons and their stories)

    I'm all for accepting it but I want to see the scientific evidence. Using a claim (i.e. the Bible) as support for another claim (i.e. the Resurrection) is circular logic. Watch.

    "Logic, how do you know the Resurrection happened?"
    "Well, it says it in the Bible."
    "Well, how do you know the Bible is true?"
    "Because it is the word of god."
    "But how do you know it's the word of god?"
    "It says it in the Bible."

    See. We're no better off than when we started. And yes, I take that view. Why? If you're writing something down, perhaps the greatest story ever told, something so pivotal, it's probably best to get it right and make sure it happened as it did. But no, instead we get some stuff that overlaps (coincidentally with other supernatural religious icons, too, but that's another ball of wax). These aren't eyewitness accounts. This is hearsay YEARS after it happened, even you admitted it as much. Acts, Corinthians, the Gospels, etc. all give different stories of what happened. Who did Jesus first appear to when he got over his three-day binger?

    ... of course he you. That's called confirmation bias. People are resuscitated all the time. I can tell you, they are not divine.
    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I've never denied my own hackish tendencies
    Quote Originally Posted by Pin dÁr View Post
    scientific by itself isn't enough of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by blaxshep View Post
    Not all Nazis were bad people

  8. #238
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:30 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,896

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    I mean, the gospel according to Luke starts off by saying he's aware of other accounts of the of Jesus. So using what you consider evidence, there's evidence of Luke being aware of other accounts.

    So they begin when he's grown? Didn't think to mention it? 'Oh, by the way, this fella was somehow conceived without even a turkey baster.' I mean, something. If you're writing a story about a divine character, that's something to add in. (See: other religious icons and their stories)
    In Christianity there's always the leading of the Holy Spirit about what to write. Whether or not they followed the Holy Spirit on that only they and God knows.

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    [I'm all for accepting it but I want to see the scientific evidence. Using a claim (i.e. the Bible) as support for another claim (i.e. the Resurrection) is circular logic. Watch.

    "Logic, how do you know the Resurrection happened?"
    "Well, it says it in the Bible."
    "Well, how do you know the Bible is true?"
    "Because it is the word of god."
    "But how do you know it's the word of god?"
    "It says it in the Bible."
    What - you're going to get the truth from an atheist?

    A careful study of the independently recorded events gives rise to a logical conclusion. And you can read about that in this link. There's 12 basic, historical facts that over 1,400 scholars (skeptic and non-skeptic) agree on.

    12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

    Also, the fact is there's a number of non-biblical sources that wrote about Jesus, and they confirm a lot of interesting details. Many of these are covered in scholar Gary Habermas' book, "The Historical Jesus." Recommend you read it. Available on Amazon.

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    These aren't eyewitness accounts. This is hearsay YEARS after it happened, even you admitted it as much.
    The vast majority of history is hearsay, goldsmith. Are you prepared to be consistent and rip out major sections of collegiate history books?

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    Acts, Corinthians, the Gospels, etc. all give different stories of what happened. Who did Jesus first appear to when he got over his three-day binger?
    You didn't read the Harmony of the Resurrection link I provided earlier, did you? And don't miss the forest for the trees. They ALL confirm the resurrection!
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

  9. #239
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    56,238

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    They were written by various people over that time frame... never knew you were so dishonest.
    Not at all - I was making fun of you switching from "Centuries" to "Decades", those two things being rather radically different.

    The Pauline Epistles were written roughly 15-30 years after the death of Christ, with the Gospels starting in that time, and ending a bit after them, all being completed prior to the turn of the century. The 150 AD date is as far as you could possibly push some of the material (the editorial language in the end of Mark, for example), but with regards to the body of texts, it's not all that plausible. Even the earliest of Paul's letters contain references to earlier items held in common, such as hymns.

    No later than 150 AD... seems like that fits perfectly.
    Sure. You could also say "no later than 1865, and it would be no less accurate.

    I won't deal with another poster tha I used to respect that starts lying... at least not tonight.
    Whatever man, it's clear you wandered outside your scope of knowledge.
    “In America we have a two-party system,” a Republican congressional staffer told a visiting group of Russian legislators. “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called: bipartisanship."

  10. #240
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    56,238

    Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    I mean, the gospel according to Luke starts off by saying he's aware of other accounts of the of Jesus. So using what you consider evidence, there's evidence of Luke being aware of other accounts.
    That is correct. Both Mark and Matthew were written before Luke/Acts, and the earliest Epistles also discuss Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

    I'm all for accepting it but I want to see the scientific evidence.
    That's interesting. You want something that would almost certainly have to be faked: the transportation of modern scientific methodologies and capabilities two millenia backwards in time.

    By that standard, the vast majority of history must be chucked.

    Using a claim (i.e. the Bible) as support for another claim (i.e. the Resurrection) is circular logic. Watch.

    "Logic, how do you know the Resurrection happened?"
    "Well, it says it in the Bible."
    "Well, how do you know the Bible is true?"
    "Because it is the word of god."
    "But how do you know it's the word of god?"
    "It says it in the Bible."
    This is a common misconception. We do not believe in God because the Bible told us to. We believe in the Bible because God told us to.

    And yes, I take that view. Why? If you're writing something down, perhaps the greatest story ever told, something so pivotal, it's probably best to get it right and make sure it happened as it did. But no, instead we get some stuff that overlaps (coincidentally with other supernatural religious icons, too, but that's another ball of wax). These aren't eyewitness accounts. This is hearsay YEARS after it happened, even you admitted it as much
    Naturally. You write the accounts down as the generation who can attest to it directly dies so that their accounts can be preserved. Prior to that, we have the Epistles, the expository material of that early generation. Which is precisely what you would expect.

    Acts, Corinthians, the Gospels, etc. all give different stories of what happened. Who did Jesus first appear to when he got over his three-day binger?
    Both John and Mark state that it was Mary. Matthew and Luke do not say, but simply record other interactions. Which is precisely what you would expect.

    ... of course he you. That's called confirmation bias. People are resuscitated all the time. I can tell you, they are not divine.
    yes. Jesus was whipped, flogged, starved, dehydrated, crucified, and then stabbed through the lungs.... and then upon being placed in a sealed cave with zero medical attention or water, revived, survived three days (again, massive blood loss, massive trauma, hands and feet split, no food, no water), tossed a giant stone designed to require multiple men to move out of the way, ninja-fought off a company of Roman soldiers, and escaped.

    Thanks. - It's been a long day, and that was a good chuckle.
    “In America we have a two-party system,” a Republican congressional staffer told a visiting group of Russian legislators. “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called: bipartisanship."

Page 24 of 60 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •