Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Jesus family tomb filmed by James Cameron, hilarity ensues.
Mainstream media seems to be ignoring this one, but I find it rather funny. Cameron and The Discovery Channel seem to be cashing in on the Christians. Since Jesus probably never existed in the first place, it's a bit like applying science to the tooth fairy. But if anything it might cause some people of faith to use their gray matter a bit and that's always nice. I hope they make millions on this.
Comments
It's whether Jesus actually rose from the dead or not, the corner stone of the Christian faith, this documentary hopes to prove by finding the body, or remaining DNA, of Jesus.
That is actually an oddly sensible plan.
My secret Identity aside, Think about it - There's a bearded Middle Eastern bloke brewing up a muck in your backyard about religion and how people should act, and the people and government in the area gets the shits with it. He's got a bit of a popular following, and peasants are convinced that this guy is something special.
Consider - Lopping off the head kills the body, in theory (And snakes), and you are feeling threatened by the possibility of revolt - What do you think you'd be doing? If you were the government of the time, I'd be wagering you'd be breaking out the big wooden plus signs too.
So what evidence does exist (besides the Bible), and how conclusive is it? Not saying it doesn't exist, just that it shouldn't be assumed to exist.
And this whole issue is a little silly anyway; even if you proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the body they found was in fact Jesus', that won't stop the believers. They'll simply say that his spirit, not his body, ascended to heaven. Or something. Fuck, if I saw a glowing ghost rise into heaven, I'd believe it too, body or no body. Faith cannot be disproven, because it is not based on proof. It's based on faith.
So based on Occam's Razor it seems easier for one guy to do the thinking and then have some people come up with it and make up a huge scheme to tell the message.
A good book about the New Testament is Gerd Theissen's Fortress Introduction to The New Testament.
[Edit] My history text book says Jesus existed.
The Esler guy sets the high school academic standards for the whole country. You can google him. The text book is the most recent history text book available. This is the first year of their use. It's all written to California state standards. If needed, I can copy some text for more detail, since I assume that scanning the pages is illegal.
I'm interested to see what kind of inferences you guys could possibly make =P
As far as I know, there are only 2 mentions of Jesus in historical documents.
Damn, where's Grissom when you need him.
Seriously, though, one source is a start. The start of a start. Textbooks aren't particularly credible; after all, some of them trumpet around saying evolution is "a theory, not a fact" as if that statement even makes sense, and laud creationism to prove their lack of scientific understanding. A scientific journal would be a better place to start.
Don't go throwing your offense around at me. I never said he didn't, I just challenged you or anybody to come up with a source. In real science, including the analysis of actual, historical facts, challenging one's claims is not offensive--it's expected. If you're offended that someone would ask for a reference to back up a claim, then you're a zealot, plain and simple. Just like certain presidents, zealots believe their words are more important than facts.
That was an interesting year of American History.
Josephus wrote in Antiquities,
"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . . And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. . . . And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).
and Tacitus wrote in the Annals that
". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tiberius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).
Both of these books were written close in time to the period in which Jesus was alleged to have existed. Now I'm not basing my faith on the above by any means, but I find citations by contemporaneous sources more persuasive on the question of existence than the assertion of a high school textbook.
Ok. Here we go:
A Hypothesis is: a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
A Scientific Theory is: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
A Scientific Law is: a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called [natural law]*
*Credit does not go to me for writing this though
A Heliocentrism is a theory, Gravity is theory, there is almost no difference between Scientific theory and fact.
Evolution is, in fact, a theory, being a collection of factual evidence, hypotheses, postulates, and experiments. It is one name for many, many things. *A* fact is one, specific, concrete, known thing. Physics isn't *a* fact. To say "physics is a fact" would mark you as scientifically ignorant. If you meant to say "physics consists of many proven laws", that would be one thing.
But "theory" and "fact" have powerful connotations. One sounds sketchy (to ignorant people), and the other sounds sure. But to say something is "a theory, not a fact" is to imply the two are mutually exclusive, indeed, that they are direct opposites! This is no more sensible than saying "onions are a vegetable, not delicious".
What I said was entirely true.
Thank you for your contribution. Those works do provide evidence, though obviously there is still room for debate.
I am unsurprised that debate on this topic doesn't normally occur. However, criticism of the likely dubious claims made by James Cameron's film seems to have been well-research and well-presented. The archaeological merit of the find is in question, for good reason, but the response has not been one of zealous backlash, rather educated argument.
Thus, it seems the modern climate is suitable for more discussion of this kind. That is a bit of bright news for our troubled times.
Still, one can't help but wonder what motivated the filmmakers. Pure archeology? That seems unlikely. Shock value? So far it seems like [u]The DaVinci Code[/u] had more, and it was fiction. Accusing the Vatican of wrongdoing seems to dredge up more resentment than challenging the beliefs of Christians, even the most fundamental. That may be a sign that religious people are more reasonable than is sometimes assumed. Like anyone else, they get mad when it gets personal, but otherwise, they're willing to entertain some reasonable debate.