Page 27 of 60 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 591

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

  1. #261
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:56 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,333

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

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post

    Doesn't matter how old Herod was. There are people that live to be 120 years old, that doesn't mean everyone lives to be that old. How old were the gospel writers?
    John lived until around 95 AD so I guess that doesn't help your case. And I guess it would be too much to believe that God might keep them alive until they finished their work.

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post

    It's circular because you're supposing what you've preconceived to be true, is true.
    Ditto back, since you're supposing it isn't true, but you've got nothing but conjecture on that to plead your case.

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    You're citing the source that uses the gospels as a source for the gospels. That is the epitome of circular logic.
    That's what I'm saying - that you using the Gospels to make your anti-Gospel argument must then be circular logic too.
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

  2. #262
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    29,564

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

    I'm looking forward to the scholarly debate that Dr. Shimron's extravagant claim of "virtually unequivocal" will surely excite.

  3. #263
    Professor

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    01-13-17 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,172

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Nice backpedal.

    You're right, I certainly qualify as a "novice" or an "amateur" as I don't make money off of religious studies.

    And it's funny, you say that the more you study the Bible and yet.. studying the Bible seems to consist of reading commentaries other people wrote on the Bible. Why not just read the actual Bible? Most of those commentaries, including the Evidence that Demands a verdict series are unfortunately pseudo-intellectual fluff pieces. They spend a lot of time attacking weak strawmen arguments and are chalked full of factual inaccuracies. eg.. the New Testament wasn't written by eyewitnesses, isn’t' unique among ancient manuscripts, and is no more self consistent through the centuries than any other document... (arguably less so).

    How could you ignore the Council of Nicea and it's relationship to Constantine and the politics of Rome? What about the Septuagint vs the Masoretic texts? What about Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus? The differences between the Apostles' Creed and the Nicean Creed? What of the Gnostic movement? What about the numerous contradictions throughout the Bible? The actual hard questions are far too numerous to tick off here.

    A better question would be for you. What constitutes "studying" the Bible? Have you read the Richard Lattimore verision? (He's widely regarded as a preeminent translator of ancient Greek works and produced the go to versions of the Illiad, the Odyssey, etc..
    Englishing the Iliad: Grading Four Rival Translations - The New Yorker

    The net result is a much more true to life feel. Much of the "interconnectedness" you're talking about is that most Bible versions translate everything to sound the same. Lattimore's doesn't. Mark is choppy and unsophisticated. Luke is flowing and elegant. The letters are actually letters.

    But.. I'm a novice, and you're an "expert".
    Quote Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
    Neither do I.



    How would you know? You've a novice, remember?



    Not ignoring anything, but what about it? Do you have a particular argument that demonstrates (for instance) that the Gospels are wrong? If you do, let's see it.



    You are a novice, but I never claimed to be an expert. Just a lot further down the road than you are.

    Now how about you show me where the Gospels are wrong, or fabrications. Pick your best one (1) or two (two) examples and document them. Include scripture numbers. Just one or two. Your very best ones.
    Apparently you're saving the part about humility for later.

    I've already pointed out a number of issues which need to be confronted for any rational discourse of the accuracy of the Gospels... or even why there are any Gospels to begin with. That you completely ignored the bolded text is telling. You assert that the Gosples are absolutely true because they're self consistent. That's not actually true, but we'll leave that for now.

    The problem you have is that there were more than four Gospels. Offhand, we have the Gospels' of Thomas, Mary, Truth, Philips, Judas, and Q. There are many more besides those. There were many divisions within Christianity at the time, Gnosticism, Arianism, Ebionism, etc... Constantine needed the power inherent in a unified Church, so all of these sects but one was pruned away. Sure, you can believe that the individual books of the Bible were inspired, the copiers who copied them were inspired, the early church leaders who preached without the guidance of an official ordained set of manuscripts were inspired, an Emperor of Rome with a vested interest in a certain result was inspired, and the council members he appointed were inspired.

    But.. what you can't do is to assert that internal consistency of the Bible is proof of its veracity. The Bible was assembled by a council of elders who canonized some texts, and rejected others. Maybe those selections were inspired, maybe they weren't. But inspired or not, the result was intended to be internally consistent. In fact, given the process, it's surprising that there are so many internal inconsistencies. (of course, the area's of debate at the time were different than they are today so the contradictions they were concerned with are similarly different)

    As an analogy, imagine if a council of governmental leaders sat down 300 years from now and canonized a handful of the myriad of LR Hubbard's texts. They pick a handful that tell mostly the same story. Then you come along and say.. obviously scientology is true.. look at these texts! They agree with each other!
    Last edited by Mithros; 04-13-15 at 05:36 PM.

  4. #264
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The South Pacific
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:57 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    52,167

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Not at all - I was making fun of you switching from "Centuries" to "Decades", those two things being rather radically different.
    Wrong. I did not switch anything. In post #131 I wrote:

    It is a good analogy because the process took decades to hundreds of years.

    The writings took place decades to hundreds of years AFTER Jesus died...

    Of the epistles which some consider pseudepigraphical, scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150

    New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    ...making my statement CORRECT.

    Sure. You could also say "no later than 1865, and it would be no less accurate.
    Again... making my statement CORRECT...

    Whatever man, it's clear you wandered outside your scope of knowledge.
    Obviously not as common and accepted basic math shows... why those three guys thanked you is the real mystery.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  5. #265
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Posts
    555

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

    The gospel of Thomas, Judas, Mary, etc... Are all 2nd century, some are hundreds of years after Jesus' death and the apostles. Are we to believe a report about what actually happened with Jesus a few decades after his death, the New Tearament, or a few hundred years after his death, the Gnostic gospels. Which would be more credible?

  6. #266
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:56 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,333

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    I've already pointed out a number of issues which need to be confronted for any rational discourse of the accuracy of the Gospels... or even why there are any Gospels to begin with. That you completely ignored the bolded text is telling. You assert that the Gosples are absolutely true because they're self consistent. That's not actually true, but we'll leave that for now.
    I'm still waiting for a specific example from any of that vs. the New Testament that makes a case for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    The problem you have is that there were more than four Gospels. Offhand, we have the Gospels' of Thomas, Mary, Truth, Philips, Judas, and Q. There are many more besides those.
    That's not a problem for me. There's only four that are 1st century that have support from the early church fathers as being original authors - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The others are 2nd century Gnostic redactions, pseudepigrapha, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    There were many divisions within Christianity at the time, Gnosticism, Arianism, Ebionism, etc...
    Still doesn't help you. There was the real thing too. You can read about it in the Book of Acts. Again, it goes back to what's authentic, not what's digressed from the authentic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Constantine needed the power inherent in a unified Church, so all of these sects but one was pruned away. Sure, you can believe that the individual books of the Bible were inspired, the copiers who copied them were inspired, the early church leaders who preached without the guidance of an official ordained set of manuscripts were inspired, an Emperor of Rome with a vested interest in a certain result was inspired, and the council members he appointed were inspired.

    But.. what you can't do is to assert that internal consistency of the Bible is proof of its veracity.
    From my 40 years of studies the New Testament and its foundations in the Old Testament are trustworthy and reliable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    The Bible was assembled by a council of elders who canonized some texts, and rejected others.
    And they did a super job of getting rid of the 2nd century Gnostic redactions and pseudepigrapha too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    As an analogy, imagine if a council of governmental leaders sat down 300 years from now and canonized a handful of the myriad of LR Hubbard's texts. They pick a handful that tell mostly the same story. Then you come along and say.. obviously scientology is true.. look at these texts! They agree with each other!
    I think you'd have a better argument if you could show me where the Gospels and New Testament are wrong. You make many arguments that they are but I've yet to see the first specific evidence from you that they are wrong. You're into generalizations whereas to make your case you need some specifics.

    I previously asked you to show me where the Gospels are wrong, or fabrications. I asked you to pick your best one (1) or two (two) examples and document them. Include scripture numbers. Just one or two. Your very best ones. I've yet to see those from you. Can I expect that in your next post to me?
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

  7. #267
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    54,838

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Wrong. I did not switch anything. In post #131 I wrote:

    It is a good analogy because the process took decades to hundreds of years.

    The writings took place decades to hundreds of years AFTER Jesus died...

    Of the epistles which some consider pseudepigraphical, scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150

    New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    ...making my statement CORRECT.
    1. This may surprise you, but in English, the addition of an "s" to the end of a word generally implies "plural".

    So, for example, "Hundreds" means "several sets of hundred". 120, not so much.

    2. So yes, switching from "decades" to "hundreds of years" is indeed switching between two things that are radically different, especially when we are dealing with questions of primary sources.

    Obviously not as common and accepted basic math shows...


    why those three guys thanked you is the real mystery.
    Because I know a little about what I am talking about, and you do not. Which is why you are now trying to cover up your original "hundreds" claim.

    if you want to abandon the "hundreds" position and shift to 150, we can talk to that just fine.
    Worth noting, Democrats: President Trump will have a Pen and a Phone. #Precedent.

  8. #268
    Professor

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    01-13-17 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,172

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
    I'm still waiting for a specific example from any of that vs. the New Testament that makes a case for you.

    That's not a problem for me. There's only four that are 1st century that have support from the early church fathers as being original authors - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The others are 2nd century Gnostic redactions, pseudepigrapha, etc.

    Still doesn't help you. There was the real thing too. You can read about it in the Book of Acts. Again, it goes back to what's authentic, not what's digressed from the authentic.

    From my 40 years of studies the New Testament and its foundations in the Old Testament are trustworthy and reliable.

    And they did a super job of getting rid of the 2nd century Gnostic redactions and pseudepigrapha too.



    I think you'd have a better argument if you could show me where the Gospels and New Testament are wrong. You make many arguments that they are but I've yet to see the first specific evidence from you that they are wrong. You're into generalizations whereas to make your case you need some specifics.

    I previously asked you to show me where the Gospels are wrong, or fabrications. I asked you to pick your best one (1) or two (two) examples and document them. Include scripture numbers. Just one or two. Your very best ones. I've yet to see those from you. Can I expect that in your next post to me?
    Recapping how we got here.

    YOU claimed that the bible was true because the bible says that it was inspired.
    I replied that that was a circular argument
    YOU replied that I wouldn't understand because I was a novice and that I should read books like the Evidence that Demands a verdict series
    I pointed out that those books are fluff pieces that don't actually address the hard questions like canonization of scripture, studying the bible should involve actually reading the Bible.
    YOU demanded that I produce evidence that the Gospels were wrong, and that you are "further down the road"
    I again pointed out that it's pointless to argue that the Gospels agree because they were selected to agree.

    .. but even though I never made any assertion that there was anything wrong with any of the Gosples... only that it was not logical to assume that they could be proven to be correct in and of themselves... But sometimes a pacifier is necessary.... so to calm you down, we'll just look at the first page of the New Testament..

    Abraham(1) was the father of Isaac(2),
    Isaac(2) the father of Jacob(3),
    Jacob(3) the father of Judah(3) and his brothers,
    3 Judah(3) the father of Perez(4) and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
    Perez(4) the father of Hezron(5),
    Hezron(5) the father of Ram(6),
    4 Ram(6) the father of Amminadab(7),
    Amminadab(7) the father of Nahshon(8),
    Nahshon(8) the father of Salmon(9),
    5 Salmon(9) the father of Boaz(10), whose mother was Rahab,
    Boaz(10) the father of Obed(11), whose mother was Ruth,
    Obed(11) the father of Jesse(12),
    6 and Jesse(12) the father of King David(13).
    Matthew 1:17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah..
    Awww... crap..... There are only thirteen generations listed from Abraham to David.

    And before you fluff it off, realize that numerology is a significant aspect of many kinds of Judiasm. Matthew 1:17 is not an accident. It's the first bit of evidence for the Divinity of Jesus. 7 is the number of the divine. 2 represents the tablets in the covenant, and 3 represents a spiritual journey. So 2*7, 2*7, 2*7 is a very clear statement that Jesus is the divine fulfilment of the covenant to the Jewish people. So the claim is important.

    You can also say copiest error, but then you have to accept that there is no one who's missing a father, meaning at least one generation is factually incorrect. Furthermore, 14, 14, 14, begins to run into serious factual problems when you begin to line the generations up with actual known history.

    Eg, Ur was founded in about 4000BCE and destroyed in about 2004 BCE by the Elamites. Abraham was from Ur. According to Jewish Chronologies, the temple was constructed in 960 BCE in the 4th year of Solomon's reign. Solomon lived to be 52, and ruled for 40 years... meaning according to biblical estimates he would have been born in ~976. So Abraham leaving Ur to the birth of Solomon is at least 1028 years. That's 14 births according to Matthew 1:17 meaning the average age of each Father was 73.... Ouch...

    Now the excile to Babylon happened in ~598BCE. We have 14 generations in 378 years, or every 27 years. And finally, we have 598 to 4 BCE or a generation every 42 years. Basically nonsense.

    It's clear this was an attempt to use using jewish numerology to to lend creedence to the divinity of Christ. It's also false, and that's just page 1.

  9. #269
    Antichrist
    zgoldsmith23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    01-13-17 @ 03:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,691

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
    John lived until around 95 AD so I guess that doesn't help your case. And I guess it would be too much to believe that God might keep them alive until they finished their work.
    It is still debate whether or not a single man named John -- and this is the same 'beloved' apostle John -- wrote the gospels. And yes, that's a bit much. There are more than a few critical scholars who doubt the apostle John ≠ the evangelist John. You're also neglecting the fact that according to your link the gospel of John was written somewhere in 87 AD (some people think earlier and some think later). That is still 50+ years after Jesus' supposed death. When I write my lab notebooks and protocols, I don't even wait days. I do it as it happens.

    Ditto back, since you're supposing it isn't true, but you've got nothing but conjecture on that to plead your case.
    No, it's called skepticism. Try it sometime.

    That's what I'm saying - that you using the Gospels to make your anti-Gospel argument must then be circular logic too.
    No, I'm showing that even if I grant you the premises you so wish to cling to, there are still illogical conclusions drawn from them. You're saying the Gospels (and, presumably, the Bible as a whole) is true. Essentially, you're clutching at straws and I'm telling you have nothing to hold on to.
    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

  10. #270
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:56 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,333

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Recapping how we got here.

    YOU claimed that the bible was true because the bible says that it was inspired.
    I replied that that was a circular argument
    I don't recall saying that. I've said I base my beliefs on the preponderance of the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    But sometimes a pacifier is necessary.... so to calm you down, we'll just look at the first page of the New Testament..
    Awww... crap..... There are only thirteen generations listed from Abraham to David.

    And before you fluff it off, realize that numerology is a significant aspect of many kinds of Judiasm. Matthew 1:17 is not an accident. It's the first bit of evidence for the Divinity of Jesus. 7 is the number of the divine. 2 represents the tablets in the covenant, and 3 represents a spiritual journey. So 2*7, 2*7, 2*7 is a very clear statement that Jesus is the divine fulfilment of the covenant to the Jewish people. So the claim is important.

    You can also say copiest error, but then you have to accept that there is no one who's missing a father, meaning at least one generation is factually incorrect. Furthermore, 14, 14, 14, begins to run into serious factual problems when you begin to line the generations up with actual known history.

    Eg, Ur was founded in about 4000BCE and destroyed in about 2004 BCE by the Elamites. Abraham was from Ur. According to Jewish Chronologies, the temple was constructed in 960 BCE in the 4th year of Solomon's reign. Solomon lived to be 52, and ruled for 40 years... meaning according to biblical estimates he would have been born in ~976. So Abraham leaving Ur to the birth of Solomon is at least 1028 years. That's 14 births according to Matthew 1:17 meaning the average age of each Father was 73.... Ouch...

    Now the excile to Babylon happened in ~598BCE. We have 14 generations in 378 years, or every 27 years. And finally, we have 598 to 4 BCE or a generation every 42 years. Basically nonsense.

    It's clear this was an attempt to use using jewish numerology to to lend creedence to the divinity of Christ. It's also false, and that's just page 1.
    I'll answer that, but do understand that to falsify Christianity you'll need to show the resurrection never happened, and all four Gospels and various epistles confirm it.

    As for Matthew's generations of Jesus, and your "only thirteen generations," you may have missed something:

    https://mitchchase.wordpress.com/201...atthew-112-16/
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

Page 27 of 60 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... 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
  •