Jesus' (yes that one) tomb found?

[ClintonHammond]

Atheism requires no faith...

From Dictionary.com
Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

agnostic
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

You want to debate with 'rules' go join a debating team... There's no need for such bullflop here... No one is being graded... There won't be a winner or loser....

Faith is a prime example of the blind, leading the blind, for even when evidence is presented to the faithful, if that evidence contradicts the tenants of their faith, the evidence will be disregarded on the grounds that it is against the faith and on no other grounds. Some people call it "Head-in-the-sandism". Me, I think their heads are somewhere other than sand.

 

[Pale Horse]

There's no faith involved in atheism.

Actually, everything takes belief. It's simply a way of life. Faith in science (because of it's proveable results), faith in non-science, faith in ethics, in morals. But certainly there are degrees and shades of grey in all this.

I am losing faith though. (My shroud question is all but forgotten). Will anyone address the 2 main questions concerning the box of bones?

 

[Doc Savage]

Will anyone address the 2 main questions concerning the box of bones?

I agree with Moedred's Kennedy association..."Jesus" and "Judas" were common names at the time. If I found a play written by "William," the literary community would demand much higher standards than a Cameron postulate to confirm it was a lost Shakespeare.

In regards to the effect such a finding, proved conclusively true, would have on Christianity: it would destroy it, plain and simple. Christianity without the resurrection of Jesus is no different than Stoicism, Epicureanism, etc.; namely a philosophy with no eternal significance. That being said, such conclusive evidence has never (and will never) be presented. Those of us who have met Him will continue to interpret available evidence from that viewpoint.

 

[ClintonHammond]

"would have on Christianity: it would destroy it"
No.. it wouldn't... Because there's already enough evidence against "The Bible" and it hasn't stopped "The Faithful" yet... All "The Faithful" do is knock down the pieces and fly away...

 

[Doc Savage]

No.. it wouldn't... Because there's already enough evidence against "The Bible" and it hasn't stopped "The Faithful" yet... All "The Faithful" do is knock down the pieces and fly away...

Riding on Finn's coattails, CH? Odd for such a strident individualist...but I guess majority rules, eh?

And evidence? No such thing...at least none you've presented pertinient to the topic.

 

[ClintonHammond]

Not riding on anyone coattails.... But it's a damn good way of describing exactly what you said above... "And evidence? No such thing..."

That you chose to try to dismiss the facts doesn't make them any less factual.

But I'm not interested in your pigeoning any further on this topic.....

 

[Doc Savage]

That you chose to try to dismiss the facts doesn't make them any less factual.

Not the facts I'm dismissing...just your interpretation of them. Seems kind of a moot point to keep repeating myself.

But I'm not interested in your pigeoning any further on this topic.....

I've heard that before. And yet the historicity of Jesus (you're "main point of contention") is as provable as an historical figure can be. The bones in the box cannot be viewed as conclusively His by any but the most jaded of opinions, and certainly not by a scientific mind. Looks like the feather's on the other foot.

 

[Finn]

Not the facts I'm dismissing...just your interpretation of them.

Hmm. Interpretation? Funny, as I thought a true believer doesn't interpretate anything. He just believes - and thus knows it to be true.

But, if there truly is interpretation on the stage... then it doesn't make either of you, monotheist or atheist, less ignorant than the other on the general scale. Interpretation is human, and well, human is erraneous. Unless you're not... no, wait, not possible. Why would you look up to one, then? Heh.

'Nyway, would it mean the end of Christianity if the bones in question were widely suddenly renounced as the real McCoy? We all know it, the answer is no. There's always someone to interpretate otherwise... and that'd be enough to those not standing the change (or possibly humiliation?).

On another note, if a 2000-year-old name on a wooden box doesn't count as valid evidence, how does an old and supposedly holy tome of same age? Especially, if it was originally written in Aramaic, which is a dead language, then translated to Latin, and from there to English, not to mention numerous sublingual rewrites... what are the odds that nothing was lost in translation? Of course, if you only buy the main plot, then no problem, but word-to-word...? Hmm.

But ah, no worries. Soon someone interpretates again that nothing was lost and we can all be happy again. Or, at least those can who don't mind the other interpretations. Damn, you gotta teach me that skill.

 

[ClintonHammond]

"if a 2000-year-old name on a wooden box doesn't count as valid evidence, how does an old and supposedly holy tome of same age?"

I believe my grandmother would use the phrase "Neither nor... "

Heh

 

[Pale Horse]

I hate to expose my king so early in the chess game, especially because it seems that just when the pawns are set, the rules keep changing. (Sorry, I had to speak in metaphor too; it helps to validate the vanity of thought, as everything is metaphor. It is how the senses operate.)

Christianity in its most empirical form is the story of God incarnate redeeming a fallen man. (I won?t go into dogma, it strays this topic into a flame war of philosophy). This assumes a few things at this point:

A) There is a God.
B) We have evidence of that God
C) We are a fallen people

If the bones are those of the Historical Jesus whose claims are recorded in 1st and 2nd century writings, then Christianity is presented with some dilemmas.

A) God incarnate is dead. (Bravo Nietzsche)
B) God is not dead, but Jesus of History is not God
C) Humanity has no need for philosophy

 

[Doc Savage]

Hmm. Interpretation? Funny, as I thought a true believer doesn't interpretate anything. He just believes - and thus knows it to be true.

Then you thought wrong. Contrary to popular maxim, faith is not blind. It just sees with a different set of eyes. As I've told y7ou several times, faith that isn't personal via direct experience isn't faith.

On another note, if a 2000-year-old name on a wooden box doesn't count as valid evidence...

Valid evidence that someone named Jesus was buried, not evidence that the Jesus of the New Testament is the one so ensconced. See the above Shakespeare illustration.

...how does an old and supposedly holy tome of same age? Especially, if it was originally written in Aramaic, which is a dead language, then translated to Latin, and from there to English, not to mention numerous sublingual rewrites... what are the odds that nothing was lost in translation?

Three words...Dead Sea Scrolls. The Isaiah Scroll is virtually identical to the one we now have, translated. Truth be told, there is no cardinal discrepancy between what we have and the extant copies. And if you want to pick that fight, Plato, Socrates, and similar historical personages will have to be considered. Odd no one wants to argue those.

But ah, no worries. Soon someone interpretates again that nothing was lost and we can all be happy again. Or, at least those can who don't mind the other interpretations. Damn, you gotta teach me that skill.

No skill involved when said action is inapplicable to my life and those I know.

Or were you, too, just trying to be inflammatory?

And to address your post, PH...I agree. But Nietzche missed it by a country mile. Thank God!

 

[Finn]

Then you thought wrong. Contrary to popular maxim, faith is not blind. It just sees with a different set of eyes.

Yet, something with it is twisted. Instead of results following evidence, the outcome is already set and whatever is revealed after has to be bent in one way or another to support what is already known. Plausibility for the sake of probability. Of course, it makes a nice, clean picture, yet alas... something in the way the pieces are set just doesn't seem... right.

Or were you, too, just trying to be inflammatory?

Let's just say that I greatly enjoy for change goading a man who certainly is no pigeon.

 

[Doc Savage]

Yet, something with it is twisted. Instead of results following evidence, the outcome is already set and whatever is revealed after has to be bent in one way or another to support what is already known. Plausibility for the sake of probability. Of course, it makes a nice, clean picture, yet alas... something in the way the pieces are set just doesn't seem... right.

Not to stray, but the other camp does the same thing. Wild C-14 dates, polystrata fossils, lack of transitory species, ooparts...not that this would justify the same action on our side. The bottom line is: none of us were there. Both sides could be argued to be advancing an agenda, and such accusation would be 100% correct. Both say everything sprang from virtually nothing. We believe God spoke the universe into being and that the evidence undergirds this. The 'naturalist' would say that 4 billion years ago nothing exploded and produced everything. And yet the Creationist is the one who is accused of blatant 'pseudoscience'...

Let's just say that I greatly enjoy for change goading a man who certainly is no pigeon.

Then excuse me while I squawk my embarassment...

 

[Finn]

The bottom line is: none of us were there.

Just a second... despite believing to be right (and I expect or demand no more), you're actually acknowledging that my differing beliefs are, in the end, as good as yours?

 

[ClintonHammond]

"the Creationist is the one who is accused of blatant 'pseudoscience'"
Because the Creationist operates without evidence

 

[San Holo]

You "athiests" amuse me. 'Prove Its','one liners', and attacking someone's faith is about all I expect from folks with such a negative outlook on life. If athiests approached science the same way they approached religion, they'd stop believing science even more quickly- 99.99% of all scientific discoveries have been proven false...but only by more scientific inquiry based on a committed, lifelong study.
Any fool can sit back and criticize Einstein because they don't understand his theories (and several of them have been proven wrong, haven't they?). Most fools usually do.
In the same manner, any fool can sit back and criticize the Bible. Likewise, they usually do.

 

[Moedred]

My main reason for posting here and on the (shorter!) Sir Richard and Bible threads was to challenge those who cheer "we've got science, yes we do" and consider the debate won. At the risk of thread drift (sorry PH) I noted current events (ex: Hwang Woo-suk) where the scientific community and peer review failed us all. Because scientists are human, and humans are imperfect. Only Christ is perfect. Even scientists want attention, fame and rewards. Yet a great reward awaits us all, regardless of station or degree.

even when evidence is presented to the faithful, if that evidence contradicts the tenants of their faith, the evidence will be disregarded

Maybe I should revive the thread in which you "do not believe that Oswald acted alone"...

 

[Doc Savage]

Just a second... despite believing to be right (and I expect or demand no more), you're actually acknowledging that my differing beliefs are, in the end, as good as yours?

That's a rather broad stroke of the brush. My convictions come from personal experience. My reasoning comes from presented fact, admittedly, filtered through the aforementioned convictions. This is, simply put, the way logic works. Hence, two great minds (or otherwise) presented with the same raw data can come to radically different conclusions. Do I believe I'm right? Absolutely. Can I prove in a laboratory that Yahweh exists, Jesus is God in the flesh, and I'm indwelt by the Holy Spirit? Not yet . In light of that statement, my faith is as scientifically unproveable as yours. And vice versa.

 

[Finn]

In light of that statement, my faith is as scientifically unproveable as yours.

I think the proper way to end this for now is to say that there're still enough great many things left for imagination in the great unknown... especially if there's anything supernatural in the play to say anything for sure. Completed with a hearty load of your respect towards your chosen viewpoints, naturally.

I'm still too young a man with more than enough to see in this life to start pondering what lies there where mere eyes can't reach, so I hope you forgive me if I play by my instinct. At least a little while longer that is...

 

[ClintonHammond]

"Maybe I should revive the thread in which you "do not believe that Oswald acted alone"..."
Oh please... you'd have to be a drooling IDIOT to believe The Warren Report! It's almost a bigger piece of fiction than The Bible....

"two great minds (or otherwise) presented with the same raw data can come to radically different conclusions"
And one would be right an the other wrong.... If either of them got it right.

"Can I prove in a laboratory... Not yet"
Not ever....

But man oh man, would it be a very interesting world if you could.... But you may as well try to prove the existence of Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.