Replacing Wikipedia

[De Selby]

You're saying no one testified to seeing the risen Jesus?

Also, since this thread is about Wikipedia, can you cite sources for the relationships and connection to David?

I'm saying we have no first hand account.  All of the stories of resurrection we have are:

1) Written by people who were not there; and
2) Of a later time than the possible dates for the event

Hence we do not have eye witness accounts.  We have stories about who the eye witnesses were, but nothing that is a direct report.

See Itmar Bernsteins post here for a good summary of the evidence on the tomb:http://dukereligion.blogspot.com.au/2008/01/talpiot-tomb-controversy-revisited.html?m=1

[Perd Hapley]

I'm saying we have no first hand account.  All of the stories of resurrection we have are:

1) Written by people who were not there; and
2) Of a later time than the possible dates for the event

Hence we do not have eye witness accounts.  We have stories about who the eye witnesses were, but nothing that is a direct report.

That is the opinion of some. Stating the above as fact is misleading, even if not intentionally so. You may cite scholars that take your view. I may cite scholars that take mine. Also, keep in mind it's not just the Gospels in play here, but the letters written by John and Peter.

Even if first-hand accounts did not exist, there's still no good explanation for people in Jerusalem (circa A.D. 33) worshiping a crucified, dead man as God, and awaiting his return. But they did worship Jesus.

See Itmar Bernsteins post here for a good summary of the evidence on the tomb:
http://dukereligion.blogspot.com.au/2008/01/talpiot-tomb-controversy-revisited.html?m=1

OK. Itamar says some interesting things, no doubt. That being said, it is a comment appended to university religion department blog posting, which concludes thusly.

To conclude, we wish to protest the misrepresentation of the conference proceedings in the media, and make it clear that the majority of scholars in attendance – including all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb - either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly speculative.

Signed,
Professor Mordechai Aviam, University of Rochester
Professor Ann Graham Brock, Iliff School of Theology, University of Denver
Professor F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Princeton Theological Seminary
Professor C.D. Elledge, Gustavus Adolphus College
Professor Shimon Gibson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Professor Rachel Hachlili, University of Haifa
Professor Amos Kloner, Bar-Ilan University
Professor Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Professor Lee McDonald, Arcadia Seminary
Professor Eric M. Meyers, Duke University
Professor Stephen Pfann, University of the Holy Land
Professor Jonathan Price, Tel Aviv University
Professor Christopher Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion
Professor Alan F. Segal, Barnard College, Columbia University
Professor Choon-Leong Seow, Princeton Theological Seminary
Mr. Joe Zias, Science and Antiquity Group, Jerusalem
Dr. Boaz Zissu, Bar-Ilan University

Thank you for answering my question. I hope you will forgive me if I do not believe the bones of Christ have been found; at least not on what's been found so far.


I'm also curious about how this tomb (especially if it contains a son of Jesus) fits with the whole picture. Would it mean that the body was stolen, and then secretly buried? If the body's disposition had been public knowledge, wouldn't there be some record of it? It would have been published by the Isrealis (to discredit the Christians), and Roman writers would have picked up on it, when the Christians became a problem for them. Yet if the burial were secret, why put his name on the box?

[lee n. field]

Must.  Not.  Respond.  To troll.

[makattak]

That is the opinion of some. Stating the above as fact is misleading, even if not intentionally so. You may cite scholars that take your view. I may cite scholars that take mine. Also, keep in mind it's not just the Gospels in play here, but the letters written by John and Peter.

Even if first-hand accounts did not exist, there's still no good explanation for people in Jerusalem (circa A.D. 33) worshiping a crucified, dead man as God, and awaiting his return. But they did worship Jesus.


OK. Itamar says some interesting things, no doubt. That being said, it is a comment appended to university religion department blog posting, which concludes thusly.


Thank you for answering my question. I hope you will forgive me if I do not believe the bones of Christ have been found; at least not on what's been found so far.


I'm also curious about how this tomb (especially if it contains a son of Jesus) fits with the whole picture. Would it mean that the body was stolen, and then secretly buried? If the body's disposition had been public knowledge, wouldn't there be some record of it? It would have been published by the Isrealis (to discredit the Christians), and Roman writers would have picked up on it, when the Christians became a problem for them. Yet if the burial were secret, why put his name on the box?

PHSHAW. Obviously no one cared a bit about the Christians at all, so no one tried to discredit them at the time. Everyone knows that Christianity was all made up by Constantine anyway to try and make the Roman Empire more unified- that was all the man was concerned about, UNIFY THE EMPIRE, I SAY!

And BESIDES it had the names of Mary, Joe, Josh, and Jim. WHO ELSE WOULD EVER HAVE THOSE NAMES!? I mean, what are the odds of ANY other family of Jews having Mary and Joseph as parents and naming two of their sons Joshua and James? It's got to be ASTRONOMICAL ODDS!


Or... perhaps those are all very common names, even today (and more so then) and it was part of that "he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him" because he came, to all appearances, as a common man.

[makattak]

That is the opinion of some. Stating the above as fact is misleading, even if not intentionally so. You may cite scholars that take your view. I may cite scholars that take mine. Also, keep in mind it's not just the Gospels in play here, but the letters written by John and Peter.

Even if first-hand accounts did not exist, there's still no good explanation for people in Jerusalem (circa A.D. 33) worshiping a crucified, dead man as God, and awaiting his return. But they did worship Jesus.


OK. Itamar says some interesting things, no doubt. That being said, it is a comment appended to university religion department blog posting, which concludes thusly.


Thank you for answering my question. I hope you will forgive me if I do not believe the bones of Christ have been found; at least not on what's been found so far.


I'm also curious about how this tomb (especially if it contains a son of Jesus) fits with the whole picture. Would it mean that the body was stolen, and then secretly buried? If the body's disposition had been public knowledge, wouldn't there be some record of it? It would have been published by the Isrealis (to discredit the Christians), and Roman writers would have picked up on it, when the Christians became a problem for them. Yet if the burial were secret, why put his name on the box?

And I've read even more. No wonder I only had a vague recollection of this- scholars can't even agree on what names are in that tomb, let alone that they are definitively Jesus' family's names.

[Perd Hapley]

And I've read even more. No wonder I only had a vague recollection of this- scholars can't even agree on what names are in that tomb, let alone that they are definitively Jesus' family's names.

I believe it was in the news sometime in the last few weeks, but I don't recall why.

[De Selby]

And I've read even more. No wonder I only had a vague recollection of this- scholars can't even agree on what names are in that tomb, let alone that they are definitively Jesus' family's names.

Like I said, proven?  Nope.

But possible and worth study?  Yep.  Names, place and relationships match the story.  There's absolutely nothing that rules it out. 

[De Selby]

PHSHAW. Obviously no one cared a bit about the Christians at all, so no one tried to discredit them at the time. Everyone knows that Christianity was all made up by Constantine anyway to try and make the Roman Empire more unified- that was all the man was concerned about, UNIFY THE EMPIRE, I SAY!

And BESIDES it had the names of Mary, Joe, Josh, and Jim. WHO ELSE WOULD EVER HAVE THOSE NAMES!? I mean, what are the odds of ANY other family of Jews having Mary and Joseph as parents and naming two of their sons Joshua and James? It's got to be ASTRONOMICAL ODDS!


Or... perhaps those are all very common names, even today (and more so then) and it was part of that "he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him" because he came, to all appearances, as a common man.

In fact many people did NOT believe there was a resurrection from the same time Christians began preaching it (which is at least decades after his death as far as we have records).  As long as there have been people claiming a resurrection there have been people calling it false. 

The idea that with eventual imperial control of this entire region Christians would've been discredited is just laughable.   For 1000 years if you'd tried that they would've burnt you.  The Muslims that followed don't believe Jesus died either, so no, there is absolutely zero substance in pointing to a lack of contrary texts.

All those names in the same tomb, with the same family relationships isn't an eye opener for you there?  Again, the prospects are far different from just any one name.

[Scout26]

When I worked for Pepsico, one of the restaurants had a Hispanic family working there.  Jose and Maria were managers, while their son Jesus just worked in the kitchen.

No miracles nor resurrections were ever report as far as I know. 

[De Selby]

When I worked for Pepsico, one of the restaurants had a Hispanic family working there.  Jose and Maria were managers, while their son Jesus just worked in the kitchen.

No miracles nor resurrections were ever report as far as I know. 

Good example -how many people have you met even today who are "Jesus, with mom Mary and dad Joseph, brother James and all from Bethlehem"

Those names are still common.  How many families from Bethlehem today still have them all in that same arrangement?

[Perd Hapley]

Like I said, proven?  Nope.

But possible and worth study?  Yep.  

That's quite a different stance than what you were saying at first.

There's absolutely nothing that rules it out. Names, place and relationships match the story.

If "absolutely nothing" ruled it out, it would be not the least bit controversial.

[De Selby]

That's quite a different stance than what you were saying at first.


 

If "absolutely nothing" ruled it out, it would be not the least bit controversial.

Uh, what in the tomb absolutely rules it out as the historical Jesus?

[Perd Hapley]

Uh, what in the tomb absolutely rules it out as the historical Jesus?

 


OK, sorry. Thought it was obvious. It's the "he's dead in a tomb part." Also, the suggestion that he had a wife and kid.

As to the latter, there's never been any evidence the Christ was a family man. As to the dead or alive part, there are doubtless some people that believe Jesus is dead; just like some people like to imagine He never existed. To millions of faithful, the historical Jesus came back from the dead, and can't be found in any tomb. Were that not so, we'd not be talking about this, would we?

[De Selby]

OK, sorry. Thought it was obvious. It's the "he's dead in a tomb part." Also, the suggestion that he had a wife and kid.

As to the latter, there's never been any evidence the Christ was a family man. As to the dead or alive part, there are doubtless some people that believe Jesus is dead; just like some people like to imagine He never existed. To millions of faithful, the historical Jesus came back from the dead, and can't be found in any tomb. Were that not so, we'd not be talking about this, would we?

And this is my point about the biblical argument.  The most fantastical parts of the religious story are used to shoot down an otherwise pretty solid historical lead.  Like the academic forum comments, considering the probability Jesus was married (and the biblical hints are there) is part of a solid historical investigation.

And from the standpoint of historical investigation, that tomb certainly does stack up.  Certainly people who argue he is a construction like Moses are out in left field.  But arguing that the tomb can't be the biblical Jesus because it holds his body!?  That's even more silly

[Ron]

And this is my point about the biblical argument.  The most fantastical parts of the religious story are used to shoot down an otherwise pretty solid historical lead.  Like the academic forum comments, considering the probability Jesus was married (and the biblical hints are there) is part of a solid historical investigation.

And from the standpoint of historical investigation, that tomb certainly does stack up.  Certainly people who argue he is a construction like Moses are out in left field.  But arguing that the tomb can't be the biblical Jesus because it holds his body!?  That's even more silly

All you have is a story you want to believe and a reliance on probabilities based on very limited data.

In others words, you've got nothing.

[De Selby]

All you have is a story you want to believe and a reliance on probabilities based on very limited data.

In others words, you've got nothing.

Except there's a tomb right near Bethlehem with Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, brother of James and brother of Jose.  You can't possibly see there might be a relationship between those bodies and the biblical stories about Jesus???

It's not a story I want to believe, it's the obvious conclusion to draw from the bible stories.  If you don't accept the religious elements of it, the historical perspective definitely points to this being a worthwhile investigation.

[Ron]

Except there's a tomb right near Bethlehem with Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, brother of James and brother of Jose.  You can't possibly see there might be a relationship between those bodies and the biblical stories about Jesus???

It's not a story I want to believe, it's the obvious conclusion to draw from the bible stories.  If you don't accept the religious elements of it, the historical perspective definitely points to this being a worthwhile investigation.

Worthy of investigation? Sure, why not? I'm in favor of archeology and any insight it can potentially bring to that era.

Nothing that I've read posted or linked here threatens the veracity of the gospel narrative in my opinion.

 

[De Selby]

Worthy of investigation? Sure, why not? I'm in favor of archeology and any insight it can potentially bring to that era.

Nothing that I've read posted or linked here threatens the veracity of the gospel narrative in my opinion.

 

Except that could possibly be Jesus's bones there?  You don't see that as an issue for orthodox Christian beliefs?

[Ron]

Except that could possibly be Jesus's bones there?  You don't see that as an issue for orthodox Christian beliefs?

If you want to play the probabilities game, I can also.

I'm very confident that the probability that they will find any connection to Jesus, other than the coincidental matching of Biblical era names slim and none, and slim isn't in his tomb.

This find doesn't really rise to anything more than a curiosity for me. Let them study away. I'm not experiencing any threat to my faith or belief structure. Much ado about nothing IMHO.

  

[Perd Hapley]

And this is my point about the biblical argument.  The most fantastical parts of the religious story are used to shoot down an otherwise pretty solid historical lead.  Like the academic forum comments, considering the probability Jesus was married (and the biblical hints are there) is part of a solid historical investigation.

And from the standpoint of historical investigation, that tomb certainly does stack up.  Certainly people who argue he is a construction like Moses are out in left field.  But arguing that the tomb can't be the biblical Jesus because it holds his body!?  That's even more silly

Who's saying it's not a "solid lead" that should be looked into? Who's shooting it down? If you think that's really Jesus in there, you're free to make that case. I don't see how it could be consistent with what happened later in the story (i.e., people believing that a crucified man would save them from their sins, and come back to rule the world; and believing it so hard, they lined up to get martyred for it).

Why would the Bible hint about Jesus being married, rather than coming right out and saying so? Were he married, it would have been brought up in passages on marriage, like I Corinthians, chapter 7. The fact is, Scripture contains no "hints" or suggestions that Christ was married, or had children. There's nothing "solid" there. It's telling that you and Itamar seem to think there is.


In the last paragraph, you mention the "biblical Jesus." The biblical Jesus left the tomb alive. That's how the Bible describes Him. Maybe you were looking for a different adjective.

[De Selby]

People having believed in someone or something so hard isn't particularly unique, and is not a measure of truth fistful.  There's also no evidence of the people who actually would've been there having believed in a resurrected body.  Again, what we have are later narratives (and some of those even have the resurrection pasted on at the end).

The bones in the box are extremely likely candidates for what's left of the person who inspired all this.

[230RN]

You people sound ridiculous, citing the Bible, which is only self-authoritative.  I suspect that's why there is such dedicated scrabbling for scraps of "proof."  Such scraps as we have were heavily edited and flavored over almost two millenia.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof --not mere "scraptual evidence" --and there ain't such a proof.

I weep for the millions of people spending their whole lives based on scraps and legends and double hearsay and so-called "Councils" who voted on what was Truth a thousand years ago.

Sure, you can call it "faith," and condemn those who hear but will not see and cannot believe "your way," but if you just admitted to yourselves the true basis of your beliefs and regarded others as colleagues in a common belief structure instead of adversaries, the world would be a better place.

Now how about we get back to talking about wiki's editorial problem?

[Ron]

You people sound ridiculous, citing the Bible, which is only self-authoritative.  I suspect that's why there is such dedicated scrabbling for scraps of "proof."  Such scraps as we have were heavily edited and flavored over almost two millenia.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof --not mere "scraptual evidence" --and there ain't such a proof.

I weep for the millions of people spending their whole lives based on scraps and legends and double hearsay and so-called "Councils" who voted on what was Truth a thousand years ago.

Sure, you can call it "faith," and condemn those who hear but will not see and cannot believe "your way," but if you just admitted to yourselves the true basis of your beliefs and regarded others as colleagues in a common belief structure instead of adversaries, the world would be a better place.

Now how about we get back to talking about wiki's editorial problem?

I can make the same argument about secularism or materialistic philosophy. The evidence for life and order being a natural occurrence of energy + matter + the magic pixie dust of time is just not there.   

The problem is that the competing narratives are just as devoid of factual evidence. The modern edifice of secularism is based upon an appeal to authority, not to self evident facts.

DeSelby has such a strong desire to not believe that he is blind to how much it colors his so called reasoning process.  

I've often thought that the most reasonable unbelievers are the ones who legitimately consider themselves agnostic.

[KD5NRH]

Those names are still common.

So is George Washington, but if you run across one born in the 1730s, there's a fair chance it's, you know, the one all the later ones were named after.

How many families from Bethlehem today still have them all in that same arrangement?

Don't know; there doesn't appear to be a significant Hispanic population there, though.

[makattak]

So is George Washington, but if you run across one born in the 1730s, there's a fair chance it's, you know, the one all the later ones were named after.

Don't know; there doesn't appear to be a significant Hispanic population there, though.

Actually, Jesus is simply our transliteration of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name יֵשׁוּעַ.

Now, want to guess how many Hebrew were named after Joshua?