Tomb frightens Christian diehards

[alfredo]

This guy will probably get some nasty calls.

http://tinyurl.com/22tsrx


Jesus' tomb was much more peaceful than the ones Indiana Jones used to find; it was devoid of snakes or booby traps. Carved in rock, it had a good top with no roof bolts and was as dry as Hindman. Not scary at all, from a grave robber's view.

But that tomb is scary beyond telling to billions who have made their belief predominant by scaring others. If the central thesis of the dogma they use to scare others into mindless submission is debunked, then fear will no longer be merchantable.

With less fear, we could go back to relying on other drives, such as lust and gluttony. I have had just enough of those two to recommend them as suitable replacements for fear.

[Warpy]

1. A human Jesus is incredibly terrifying

The copout I've noticed among Christians, good people and bad, is that they can't possibly emulate the life of Jesus or follow his commands of tolerance and generosity because, after all, he was a god and they're only human.

Imagine how terrifying it must be to be confronted with the possibility that those commands are meant for real people as they were practiced by a real person.

Perhaps Jesus would be better served if people would stop grooving on the myth and start practicing the things he preached. The world would become a much better place very quickly.

[On the Road]

2. I Like That Article -- It's Amusing and Thought-Provoking, But

to tell you the truth, I don't see anyone being frightened by the tomb. It's too easy to dismiss.

It is indeed possible that this is Jesus' tomb. But I doubt it -- not because Jesus ascended into heaven, but because the facts doesn't fit in with any historical scenario I can think of.

Let's say Jesus really did have a family, die a natural death, and had his bones buried in an ossuary. That would mean that the gospel accounts are almost complete fabrications. And in that case, why would anyone expect the family names to be correct? If the gospels are wrong about the most fundamental facts of Jesus' life, how can they be relied on family names (and not all the names at that)?

On the other hand, let's say the gospels are correct on Jesus' life except for his family status and his resurrection. In that case, why doesn't the tomb show signs of veneration and being preserved as a shrine? Apparently, Peter's house in Galilee (or what was thought to be Peter's house) functioned as a local church and there's a lot of evidence at the site. Jesus' followers remained an intact movement for about 15 years in Jerusalem under the leadership of his brother before Paul even started his breakaway movement.

Finding this plain middle-class family in the wrong location who just happened to have the right combination of names just isn't convincing. There needs to be some other persuasive reason to think this is the real Jesus.

[crikkett]

8. it is easy to dismiss the tomb

but if you poke your head into the religion forum here you'll find excerpts of writings by Xtian scholars who talk about the veracity of the claim. Statistically speaking these scholars contend that it's likely to be the tomb of Jesus, that it's entirely probable that his family (including wife Mary Magdalane and baby Jude) took his remains with them to Jerusalem.

[spoony]

12. "statistically speaking"

that's rubbish. Those "statistics" rely on many premises laid out, few of which seem to be true. It's like saying, about any theory, "If everything I think is so, then it's very likely I'm right." Lol.

I find it deliciously ironic that people are hooking their wagons to pseudo-science to attack people they think are anti-science.

[alfredo]

26. My first thought was of the Tom Robbins Book

"Another Roadside Attraction." The hero of the story found the body of Christ hidden in a tunnel under the Vatican. He steals it.

[On the Road]

30. The Use of Statistics in Biblical Studies is Not Encoraging

Identifying authors by word counts used to be a big field. Great claims were made, but in the end most of them were notoriously open to dispute.

To make a compelling argument, it's important to define and justify the hypothesis -- that is, who are the family members who would be expected to be buried together. The assumption is clearly that the gospels are being used to define Jesus and his family. There are variations, so it should be spelled out.

Let's say there should be parents Joseph and, Mary, and siblings Jesus, James, Judas (or Thomas), and possibly Joses, Salome, Simon and/or Miriam. (eg, Mark 6, John 19)

Once you've defined a list of names, a simple way of estimating the probability is to determine what proportion of the population had each name and multiply them for each additional name that was found together. (It's not exactly this simple, but it's close enough.) If 10% of the people are named Joseph and 10% are name Jesus, then the probability of finding both together are .10 x .10 = 1%. Particular relationships "Jesus son of Joseph" enhances the probabilities further.

This seems to be the kind of thinking behind the 600-to-1 odds placed on this being Jesus' tomb. However, that number does not take into account that:

1) The individual probability has to be multiplied by the population, or the number of sites that could yield these results. In the example, if 1,000 such group ossuaries have been found, you would expect to find roughly 1% x 1000 or 10 instances of Joseph and Jesus occurring together.

2) Second, the findings deviate from the expectations. In an experimental situation, the findings would actually disprove the hypothesis. But since history and archeology are muddier, they don't disprove so much as make it less likely.

The appearance of Matthew lessens the probability that this is Jesus' family, since he had no known relatives named Matthew. The absence of Joseph, as well as siblings Joses, Judas, James, and possibly Simon, Miriam, and Salome lower the probability even more (this is why defining the expectations is important). Finally, the appearance of Judah, son of Jesus, violates the expectation because it's not in the gospel accounts.

This is not saying that Jesus had no children. It saying that if the gospel accounts are being used to estimate probability, deviaions also have to be included. The 600-to-1 has to be lowered (IMO by a lot) for the instances where the finding did not match the gospel accounts.

3) Because family relationships are not provable, the findings are ambiguous and could fit in several different ways. For example, they could provide equally good evidence of Jesus the son of Matthew. This lowers the probability as well.

4)DNA testing does not conform to the gospel picture of Jesus' family:

(T)he recent DNA evidence did NOT provide positive connections among anyone in the tomb. This lack of evidence is then used to presume a marriage relationship between "Jesus" and "Mariamene," who is identified as Mary Magdalene....She could have been married to any one of the four men, or to other family members, or she could someone's daughter. We must remember that family tombs were from extended families and were often multi-generational. So, Mariamene could have lived decades earlier or later than Jesus.

The quote is from Gary Habermas's site, which has some other useful arguments. I don't subscribe to his theology, but some of his points are well taken. One of the graphics is also helpful in presenting why the findings do match the expected relationships:



It is not impossible that the Jesus in this tomb is the person described in the gospels. But if he is, almost everything being used as evidence is wrong.

[ThomWV]

3. And I'm So Please About It I Could Simply Shit With Joy

I can not wait for the next born-again door-knocking assholes to show up with their kit of Jesus Comic Books and pandering bullshit. They always want a moment for a conversation. Now I know exactly what to say to them:

Me: "What in hell are you doing here? Didn't you hear? They found the body!"

Them: Whatever sort of bullshit they come up with

Me: "Whoa there Ace, didn't you get the message? They found the body. Now get the hell out of there"

I am so pleased this happend in my lifetime. Anyone I see calling themselves a Christian is gonna get the same thing from me and I do not intend to be the least bit civil about it either, They found the body, get over it.

[AlinPA]

4. LOL, as I say you are a very colorful writer! ("...kit of Jesus Comic Books..")

[liberalEd]

5. They found the body, get over it

Heh, I love that line.

If I ever get a tattoo, it will probably be that. :)

Whatever level of evidence there is for this being the body of the actual Jesus, it is better than the evidence that he rose from the dead and ascended bodily into heaven. So yeah, I agree. They found the body, get over it!

[kestrel91316]

22. Hell, I always did think the Jesus Is Risen From The Dead (TM) line

was a bunch of BS. The only part of the story I ever paid attention to was the actual words and teachings of the guy.

[Iwasthere]

7. LOL

Yep. I have been telling them too. "They found the body, in the tomb." This is just too easy...

[spoony]

9. So you don't care if it's true or not?

Because, when this dead horse was alive at DU, it was discredited by almost everyone who didn't have your motivations of twisting a publicity stunt into a cudgel to use against people you hate.

Intellectual dishonesty, thy name is anti-theist.

[ThomWV]

11. Compared To What?

Compared to the notion of a devine assention? Give me a fucking break and go back to knocking on doors and spreading the good word. When you get to mine you know what to expect. Get over it, they found the body.

[spoony]

13. It isn't "compared to" anything

No one brought up ascension. And what you've implied is a false dilemna, namely that this is real or that Jesus ascended. The tomb isn't what you wish it was, get over it.

[dysfunctional press]

18. "Intellectual dishonesty, thy name is anti-theist..."????

that has to be one of the most ironic statements i've EVER come across...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[spoony]

19. Right over your head eh?

The entire point was that such "defenders of science" against the dullard hoards of believers are now falling over themselves to support a pathetic ly weak find dismissed by actual scientists.

There is no irony in pointing out irony.

[dysfunctional press]

23. without "intellectual dishonesty", there wouldn't be any theist religions to begin with...

THAT'S the real irony here.

[Occulus]

38. If hate weren't already set in biblical stone, you'd have an argument

As it is, christianity (sic) hates far more people than the people it hates do themselves. I should know- I'm one of that religion's written targets.

Go whine about persecution someplace else. Those of us who are truly persecuted- by christianity- have had more than enough.

[okasha]

16. Actually, they didn't find the body.

The closest thing to a body they found in the "Jesus son of Joseph" ossuary was a fragment of fiber "consistent with the fabric of a shroud" that yielded a corrupt and incomplete DNA sequence.

Let's just hope you luck out and the person at the door hasn't read the book, either, because the first one who has is going to call you on it, Ace.

[jhasp]

20. I'm glad to see that you are so tolerant of others' spiritual beliefs.

:sarcasm:

[NDP]

6. Oh, smart Christians expect to hear these types of things. Wait until they tell us that they have

discovered life on Mars.

[spoony]

10. These responses

only reinforce my belief that few anti-theists care about the truth, they only want to inflict damage on the people they despise.

[notadmblnd]

14. What do you mean, damage?

How can they hurt you? Do you mean they're mean to you? Or that you see them as a threat to your faith some how? I'm just curious?

[spoony]

17. I'm saying

that a few handfuls of people here WANT to damage others' faiths. They like waving anything they can, even bankrupt nonsense like this, in the faces of believers to hurt them.

You see I've used the term anti-theist several times in this thread. These are not simply atheists, not simply people who don't believe but who have a live and let live philosophy, these are people upset that believers exist. They hate them, it glows like radiation off the things they write. And like I said, the "ha ha fuck you your beliefs are a lie!" type of posts are simply more evidence of that.

[Pastiche423]

21. You're faith must be mighty weak

if non-believers can cause you harm by uttering their opinions.

[sammythecat]

28. I doubt spoony's faith is weak, and

there is a difference between uttering an opinion and and an "in your face" attack.

There are wackos among believers and there are anti-theists among atheists. There are good, decent, people among both believers and non-believers. Good and decent people who have made their belief or non-belief a part of the foundation of their lives.

I was a believer for 20+ years and I've now been a non-believer for 20+ years. If I had proof, or even a very good argument for atheism, I would take no delight in trying to knock the foundation out from under a good person who is a believer. To me, that would be just plain mean, the action and attitude of an asshole. If a woman went on and on telling me how wonderful her husband is, I might try to be as careful and gentle as I could if I felt it necessary to tell her he was having an affair.

[Pastiche423]

29. What? spoony cannot speak for itself?

I am fucking sick and tired of hearing the poor pitiful xtians talk about being persecuted in this country.

That is nothing but horseshit!

If words on an INTERNET board hurt them, then their faith IS WEAK!

[sammythecat]

32. He's already spoken for himself, as you well know since

you replied to what he said. So, the answer to your question is "yes".


I tried to express my view to you but, it's late and your angry. One point I was trying to make was that all christians aren't Jerry Falwell nutbags and all atheists don't have the generous spirit of a Carl Sagan. Tomorrow, maybe, we'll feel better. I'm going to bed. If you want to continue tomorrow, I'll be sure to respond. Right now I don't think you're in the mood to converse and I'm too tired to fight.

[cyborg_jim]

41. So as ever the spoony solution: propagate the perceived hatred

That's always worked so well in the past. :eyes:

I'm afraid it's just too bad at the end of the day if your beliefs turn out to be wrong. Tell ya what, if you really don't like the idea of that being the case why not just ignore this shit? Seeing you throw a tantrum all over the place ain't really going to engender any sympathy for you.

[Occulus]

40. I haven't tried to legislate against christianity specifically

They DID legislate against me, though.

"they only want to inflict damage on the people they despise."

That's more of a christian sentiment, actually. And you're right- christians do, quite regularly, try to inflict damage upon the people they despise.

I don't see gays and Wiccans invading churches, though, stopping sermons and whatnot. By contrast, Wiccan circles are often (and I do mean often) hassled by police because a christian got his or her rosary in a twist over their prayers.

Everything you've said is wrong.

[sakabatou]

15. Wasn't the name on the tomb spelled wrong?

So, it's someone else?

[alfredo]

27. Only a Moran would do that.

[knitter4democracy]

24. It doesn't scare me.

I don't get it. Our faith is just fine. There is enough reason to question that site, and even if it really did turn out to be true, it doesn't change the red-letter part of the Gospels, which my faith rests on.

[ends_dont_justify]

25. My faith died with other christians, not christ

It could be him or not, but my faith died the day I realized that the supposed golden boy of non sinliness was accompanied by a bunch of yahoos who enjoy taking an 'us or them' attitude with things. My parents always had a good metaphor, "Any true god will know his or her true people, so just do your best and act in the way you think is right and you'll be recognized." As opposed to all this ridiculous side-show attitude towards tiny facts which may or may not be true. The day we see the gospel according to Jesus is the day I decide whether or not I will go back to that faith.

[Leopolds Ghost]

31. Does anyone here understand that Yeshua (a variant of Joshua) was a very common name?

Before Jesus of Nazareth came along?

[QC]

37. I found a gravestone in the local cemetery that says "Charles" on it.

Could it be that King Charles I, the Royal Martyr, was actually beheaded in the Florida panhandle and not, as is commonly believed, in Whitehall!? I need to make a movie about this amazing discovery!

[WilliamPitt]

33. I'm Christian, not a "diehard," and I find your post rude.

I won't budge you off whatever feelings/experiences/grudges motivated this post no matter what I may say, so I'll save that energy.

Some thoughts, tho...

Billions? Rilly? Billions of "diehards"? Where are they keeping them all? It'd be kinda hard to hide billions of "diehard" Christians in Texas or Idaho...unless the saucer people are involved...we're through the looking-glass, people...

I have never used my faith to scare anyone, nor do I seek anyone's mindless submission. I'm a Christian, not a "diehard," and the ease with which you lump me and many others in with your political enemies disgraces whatever intent or motives you brought with you.

So...gonna go find my "billions" of fellow "diehards" and get busy scaring people into mindless submission. I should pack a lunch. Amen.

[alfredo]

34. Personally I don't think it will make any difference to the diehard.

Even if it is the body, the religion will adapt. They will then say it was a mistaken interpretation of the text. They will say it was his spirit, not his physical body the left this planet. Of course they can also reject the proof like they did evolution.

The Jews adapted when they lost the Ark of the Covenant. It ceased being the central object in their religion.

[Ganja Ninja]

35. Holy Salman Rushdie!

Pat Robertson is going to have to issue a fatwa on this guy.

[QC]

36. Discussion topics relating to religion...

...that have little or no relation to politics or current events must be posted in the Religion/Theology forum.

[alfredo]

39. The revealing of the tomb is a current event.

[Evoman]

42. What if Jesus is still alive in his tomb (that we haven't found yet)?

And two thousand years of isolation have made him crazy. That would be so damn cool...then a bunch of rogue archaelogists find his tomb, and accidentally release the crazy Jesus on the unsuspecting world. Of course, the archaeologists would have to be a hodge podge of personalities: the beautiful, smart lead archaelogist, the dumb heavy weapons guy, and the computer specialist (that I think would look something like Seth Green) among others. Then they could make a movie of it (not using the real Jesus, because he is crazy) starring Charlize Theron and Caviezal called "Jesus 3000". That would beat out James Camerons stupid movie...and I think Tarantino should direct it.

The tagline? "He saved you....now he's back to claim you.."

Awesome.

[On the Road]

43. Thank You for That Refreshing Break from This Flame War