http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/02/jesus_tales_from_the_crypt.html

Well this is interesting, and should prove to be interesting on Monday. I'm not quite sure what to say

This is awesome.

[QUOTE=Comments on the page]So does this mean that it's nothing more than a cruci-fiction?[/QUOTE]
Boom boom.

If these tombs were discovered 20 years ago, why is this the first thing I've seen mentioning something so major?

Yeah....this is a little odd, should be very interesting to see.

Interessant. I imagine the huzzah surrounding it will be far more interesting than the film itself (but thank BOB speilberg's not directing it himself).

Well this will cause some controversy.

CATHOLIC CHURCH CONSPIRACY!!!

This will be awesome. I know a lot of Christians (mostly my family) who won't even bother watching it. They'll shrug it off as trash because it threatens their beliefs, and they can't stand to think their entire upbringing might be wrong.

There will be a lot of plugging of the ears and "NA NA NA I'M NOT LISTENING!!" after this comes out.

WOW, I CANNOT IMAGINE WHY THAT MIGHT BE. PLEASE ELABORATE FOR US STUPIDS.

I'm not christian, but DNA proof for the body being Jesus is a funny thought.

Hey look, a perfect example!

You fail at sarcasm.

The whole purpose for my posts was basically a big "durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr."

You fail at debate. Last time there was an evolution vs. creationism thread, you plugged your ears and ran away. Then you claimed that you didn't really care, which was your way of weaseling out of an argument you clearly lost. That's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.

A big "durr," huh? Oh, well thank you for reminding me that I stated the obvious! Haha, I guess I wouldn't know since I was the one that stated it!

Now you fail at comprehension.

Never once in that other debate did I take a stance for either side. I urge you to find any statement of mine that indicates a belief in either theory.

You never formally took one, but it was pretty damn clear which side you lean towards.

No, it was clear that it is impossible for me to acknowledge any "proof" from either party.

What is clear, is that you have an extreme disdain for anyone who happens to hold a view that contradicts your own, even to the point of you assigning views to neutral parties.

I'm good friends with two guys that are Baptists and believe in creationism. One of them you could say is a very good friend, so I don't think that's the case.

I think my problem is you. Sometimes you are awesome and sometimes you say what I think are the dumbest things. :saddowns:

I do that just to throw you off.

The comments on that page (mainly the ones made by "Diana" in her argument with some other guy) make me want to GREWARKLEJSALFWE

I call FUD.

What does the article really tell us?

-They found some caskets someplace in Jerusalem with the names Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua on them. In itself, it means nothing, since Jesus was a fairly common name at the time. (Pilate asked whether he should release Barabas or "He who is called the Christ". From this, it can be implied that both had the same first name.) There were also 3 Marys mentioned in the scriptures. Also, Matthew was an apostle who had no biological family relationship to Jesus. For some reason, people are jumping to conclusions over this without any concrete proof..

-RE: the DNA, all we have is Cameron's word concerning its origin. That in itself means nothing. The fact that he plans to wave these things in front of the media to attempt to debunk Christianity says a lot about his motives.

- You also have to ask yourself where Cameron got his evidence. Exactly whose DNA was this compared with?

-Who are the "experts" who examined the caskets?

I wouldn't put it past people to use this to launch a smear campaign against Christianity, since people have been trying to disprove the resurrection since the beginning.

Um, I expect DNA evidence demonstrating that all the carcasses are related. DNA evidence that the carcass is a certain individual is hard to buy, unless you have samples that without a doubt belong to that individual.

It still doesn't change anything.

All that would prove that whoever is in the Jesus casket is related to the people in the other caskets. It does not prove that this Jesus is the Jesus of the Bible.

Debunking the resurrection requires undeniable proof, and this doesn't cut it.

Wait people think you need DNA evidence to debunk christianity?

I'm more about that jesus shroud and the face cloth being obvious forgeries myself.

Jesus and Judah were VERY common names in the region at that time. The likelihood of it being the Jesus from the Bible seems a stretch.

Psst, proving it requires proof, too, and there's none of that.

Well, there is that piece of fabric with his supposed image burned into it.

But it seems pretty fake to me.

If you're out to disprove something, then the burden of proof should be on you.

If you're out to prove something, then the burned of proof is on you.


LOOK I CAN REVERSE THINGS.

I know, you just seemed to imply that they were debunking something that was known to be true.

If you want to debunk Christianity, debunk the resurrection. The resurrection is essential because a mere man does not come back from the dead under his own power.


All you have to do is prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead. The tomb is empty. That is why I say that the burden of proof is on you. Show me the body, and if you can actually prove with hard evidence that it is Jesus Christ as mentioned in the scriptures, then I will believe you.

It is unfeasible that the disciples stole the body. By claiming that, you would be claiming that a group made up mostly of fishermen were able to somehow overwhelm an elite contingent of trained and armed Roman guards. Remember, if the soldiers failed then they would be executed, so they were defending the tomb with their lives. Plus, most of the disciples were eventually martyred. If they stole the body, then why would they allow themselves to die for something that they knew was a lie? Would you do that?

Also, it must be established that Jesus was physically dead when they put Him in the tomb. He was wrapped head to toe in lots of heavy cloth-- If this was done to you then extricating yourself would be nearly impossible even without previous injuries. It would be like asking a living human wrapped up in mummy bandages to unwrap itself. By claiming that Jesus simply fainted and later revived in the coolness of the tomb ignores the fact that His side was pierced with a spear (which in itself would usually be a mortal injury), and that He would have had to walk to the door of the tomb on nail-pierced feet/ankles and roll a multi-ton stone aside with nail-pierced hands/wrists, quite a feat considering the amount of blood lost. The soldiers conducting the crucification were well-trained, they would not have been deceived by any ruse. In fact, one of them was in the process of breaking the legs of the other two crucified men to hasten their deaths when they noticed that Jesus was already dead, and even then they used the pointy end of the spear to make sure. Need I even mention the scourging and pre-crucification torture that left Jesus barely able to walk? Being crucified would only worsen a pre-existing condition such as that. If Jesus was not dead when they put Him in the tomb, then it would have been impossible for Him to have gotten out without supernatural means.

(There's a difference between not believing that something is true and believing that something is not true)

It's the same difference between not proving something true and proving something not true

Sure okay whatever

He should make more Terminator 2 like movies instead.

Or a Mecha-Jesus movie.

Mmmm'mm! Talk about great fan fiction.

(awwwsnap)

Is it a matter of not believing something because it is not true or is it a matter of not believing something because you do not WANT to believe it?

Not believing something doesn't mean you think it's not true. It just means it hasn't been proven true or untrue and you therefore could answer "No" to the both the question "Do you think it's true?" and "Do you think it's untrue?"

Just because I don't believe that the Resurrection happened doesn't mean I believe that it didn't happen. (i.e. "I don't know.")

FYI, telling people they or things they've brought forward "fail" when you're arguing with them makes you look like a huge loser

I'M JUST TRYING TO HELP GUYS

I think I linked to a Terminator-Jesus crossover video a few weeks ago.

Maybe something unusual did happen back then. Or maybe not. What surprises me is that this ROFLCOPTER has been going on for 2007 years. And apparently, a lot of people really do believe all this (which, for me, is also strange, considering that I was born in godless USSR and all that). But all this is nothing compared to my sheer amazement at dudes who think that it's possible to tell 2.1 billion people that they and their ancestors have been wrong about what they consider to be one of the unshatterable columns of existence (along with kittens, tea parties, and buttsecks) and assume they'd "go home and rethink about their lives".

And it's not like proving anything would change anything anyway. Religion doesn't care. It simply adapts.

PS. PLATYUPS.

You fail.

(in before the RAGNRAROFL)