wiegie Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I know about peer review journals. My point is that lots of ossuaries are found by Israeli archeologists and stored away with probably little consideration given to Christian issues or significance. Whether their "theory" has been peer reviewed means little to me given the circumstances. Their theory is completely farfetched albeit interesting to think about. But whether it has been peer reviewed doesnt add or detract from its possible validity to me (which is impossible to prove anyway). That's fine. There's nothing forcing anyone to use the scientific method if they don't want to. You are, however, now precluded from making fun of young-earth creationists, global-warming critics, supply-side economics proponents, etc. without being a complete hypocrit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 That's fine. There's nothing forcing anyone to use the scientific method if they don't want to. You are, however, now precluded from making fun of young-earth creationists, global-warming critics, supply-side economics proponents, etc. without being a complete hypocrit. werd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 My point is that lots of ossuaries are found by Israeli archeologists and stored away with probably little consideration given to Christian issues or significance. Let me also add, that I find it very hard to believe that Israeli archeologists wouldn't know who Jesus was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Let me also add, that I find it very hard to believe that Israeli archeologists wouldn't know who Jesus was. reckon?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Let me also add, that I find it very hard to believe that Israeli archeologists wouldn't know who Jesus was. who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Let me also add, that I find it very hard to believe that Israeli archeologists wouldn't know who Jesus was. wiegie, yer doughnuts stirring skill are incredibly weak. I know you like to dabble, but please spare us. Noone said anything about not knowing who Jesus was and you know it. Take yer kiddie bamboo pole and hit the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Noone said anything about not knowing who Jesus was and you know it. you said this: My point is that lots of ossuaries are found by Israeli archeologists and stored away with probably little consideration given to Christian issues or significance. And my response is that you have to be a freaking moran to think that Israeli archeologists are either so ignorant as to not recognize something as important as Jesus' potential ossuary or are so biased that they would deliberately ignore such a find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I know about peer review journals. My point is that lots of ossuaries are found by Israeli archeologists and stored away with probably little consideration given to Christian issues or significance. Whether their "theory" has been peer reviewed means little to me given the circumstances. Their theory is completely farfetched albeit interesting to think about. But whether it has been peer reviewed doesnt add or detract from its possible validity to me (which is impossible to prove anyway). Let me also add, that I find it very hard to believe that Israeli archeologists wouldn't know who Jesus was. I thought this was Wiegie's argument all along. You don't think a (presumably) Jewish archeologist has reason to question the cental theme of modern Christianity? I'm guessing that if some sector if the Jewish population had evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but was merely a mortal prophet - they'd do just that. The idea of relieving the Jewish people of crucifying God Himself (to a large number of people) might be appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 (edited) monemakers, let me get this straight. Humans are not supposed to investigate any evidence found which may directly or indirectly refute the divinity of Jesus Christ because a couple of people 2000 years ago claimed he was divine? In fact, we must never, ever question his divinity at all? Or can we question things only if the final answer supports the notion of divinity? Or do we just say frack it, it doesn't matter what the evidence says, we've created an entire culture around him being divine, it doesn't matter what evidence turns up for or against, that's our story and we're sticking to it? So far I think this post provides some of the more enlightening 'questions' regarding the possible finding of Jesus' tomb. God, if he does indeed exist, gave every human free-will and the ability to question our existence. While it appears some people are offended with the idea that Jesus might not have risen from the dead -- body and all -- and floated off to heaven, I see this new finding as very intriguing. If this is Jesus' body found with other family members I somehow doubt it will be the end of Christianity. At least we can still say his soul went to heaven -- which is the more important aspect regarding the Christian faith. I think. Edited February 28, 2007 by TheGrunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 (edited) and so we've learned...skins is a gullible sucker who gives more weight to a sweeps week special by a hollywood director on the discovery channel than to the opinions of experts in the field. typical. Edited February 28, 2007 by Azazello1313 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 and so we've learned...skins is a gullible sucker who gives more weight to a sweeps week special by a hollywood director on the discovery channel than to the opinions of experts in the field. typical. That's where you lost me. How again does considering the possibility that Jesus was indeed found in a tomb make someone a gullible sucker? Yer normally ok on this stuff. The Bible tells us that James the brother of Jesus lead the Jerusalem community of Jesus followers for decades after his death. You really want to keep arguing that it is unlikely that the family and entourage of Jesus "obviously" wouldnt want to hang out in Jerusalem? By the way, I have no idea what that tomb holds, nor do you, nor does Cameron, nor does the archaeologist you think knows so much who claims absolutely that the family of Jesus did not have a tomb in Jerusalem. But it is certainly an interesting grouping of names. And yer arguments about the names are off as all of the names but the second Mary (the one not genetically connected to the Jesus) and Jonah (supposed son of Jesus) are members of the immediate family of Jesus as recorded in biblical and extra biblical records. I find that fascinating ... I completely agree with skins here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 (edited) Of course in both cases we're dealing in probabilities and not certainties... and yet both sides of each issue would seem to want to convince people that their side of the argument is indeed an indubitable certainty. Madness! :Sigh: I haven't been following this thread closesly but scientifically accepted observations, hypotheses, and especially theories aren't developed or advanced without meeting a strict set of standards, tests, and professional consensus. We don't base or implement core aspects of sciences (such as key prinicples in physics, geology, chemistry, etc etc.) on a loosely based notion that most scientists think is a mere probability. A multitude of scientific facts and data from time = 0 until present support a given scientific theory while one shred of evidence during that time, hasn't disproven it. We teach, learn, advance and progress on principles that aren't indubitable certainties. When scientists come to a consensus with an overwhelming majority of peers that are experts in the field, it's generally significantly closer to certainty than probability. I'm almost certain that during the 2007 football season Jerry Rice won't lead the league in receptions, receiving TD's, receiving yards while Emmit Smith leads the league in rushing attempts, rushing TDs, and rushing yards while they both share the regular season MVP. There is a multitude of evidence supporting this won't happen. The overwhelming majority of knowledgeable football fans would agree with me, although a few fringe NFL fans might put it in the realm of a realistic possibility. And no one can accuratley claim my statement is an indubitable certainty. Edited February 28, 2007 by bushwacked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 :Sigh: I haven't been following this thread closesly but scientifically accepted observations, hypotheses, and especially theories aren't developed or advanced without meeting a strict set of standards, tests, and professional consensus. We don't base or implement core aspects of sciences (such as key prinicples in physics, geology, chemistry, etc etc.) on a loosely based notion that most scientists think is a mere probability. A multitude of scientific facts and data from time = 0 until present support a given scientific theory while one shred of evidence during that time, hasn't disproven it. We teach, learn, advance and progress on principles that aren't indubitable certainties. When scientists come to a consensus with an overwhelming majority of peers that are experts in the field, it's generally significantly closer to certainty than probability. I'm almost certain that during the 2007 football season Jerry Rice won't lead the league in receptions, receiving TD's, receiving yards while Emmit Smith leads the league in rushing attempts, rushing TDs, and rushing yards while they both share the regular season MVP. There is a multitude of evidence supporting this won't happen. The overwhelming majority of knowledgeable football fans would agree with me, although a few fringe NFL fans might put it in the realm of a realistic possibility. And no one can accuratley claim my statement is an indubitable certainty. good to know that everything makes such perfect sense in your world ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 :Sigh: I haven't been following this thread closesly but scientifically accepted observations, hypotheses, and especially theories aren't developed or advanced without meeting a strict set of standards, tests, and professional consensus. We don't base or implement core aspects of sciences (such as key prinicples in physics, geology, chemistry, etc etc.) on a loosely based notion that most scientists think is a mere probability. A multitude of scientific facts and data from time = 0 until present support a given scientific theory while one shred of evidence during that time, hasn't disproven it. We teach, learn, advance and progress on principles that aren't indubitable certainties. When scientists come to a consensus with an overwhelming majority of peers that are experts in the field, it's generally significantly closer to certainty than probability. I'm almost certain that during the 2007 football season Jerry Rice won't lead the league in receptions, receiving TD's, receiving yards while Emmit Smith leads the league in rushing attempts, rushing TDs, and rushing yards while they both share the regular season MVP. There is a multitude of evidence supporting this won't happen. The overwhelming majority of knowledgeable football fans would agree with me, although a few fringe NFL fans might put it in the realm of a realistic possibility. And no one can accuratley claim my statement is an indubitable certainty. Then we agree. Thank you for illustrating my point. Your innate sense of objectivity has shone through once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 If the Bible is true, do we get our slaves back? “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.” —Ephesians 6:5-6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 So far I think this post provides some of the more enlightening 'questions' regarding the possible finding of Jesus' tomb. God, if he does indeed exist, gave every human free-will and the ability to question our existence. While it appears some people are offended with the idea that Jesus might not have risen from the dead -- body and all -- and floated off to heaven, I see this new finding as very intriguing. If this is Jesus' body found with other family members I somehow doubt it will be the end of Christianity. At least we can still say his soul went to heaven -- which is the more important aspect regarding the Christian faith. I think. Jefferson, Judaism, and Jesus Was Thomas Jefferson America's first Jewish president? According to today's New York Times, he might be. Researchers studying Jefferson's Y chromosome (the genetic material that determines maleness) say that it belongs to a lineage which is rare in Europe but common in the Middle East. The DNA sample was taken from Jefferson's relatives as part of an earlier inquiry into whether Jefferson had fathered a family with his slave Sally Hemings. As you may remember, researchers reported in 1998 that the Jefferson family chromosome matched perfectly that of a male-line descendant of one of Sally's sons. Historians who had previously dismissed the possibility of such a relationship were forced to revise their position. When seeking to determine genetic links and descendants, DNA evidence is the conclusive way to prove or falsify a theory. For generations, skeptics of the Christian faith have wished for such a simple way to prove or falsify our truth claims. They ask, ‘What would convince a Christian that his or her faith is invalid?’ We cannot prove or disprove without a doubt that God exists, that the Bible is his word, that Jesus is his Son, they say. But there is actually a very simple way to falsify the Christian faith beyond question: prove that Jesus never rose from the dead. Paul said as much: "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:14-15). Jesus predicted his own resurrection: "On the third day he will rise again" (Luke 18:33). If he did not rise from the dead, he was wrong. If he was wrong, he was not God. If he was not God, Christianity is false. It's that simple. All this makes James Cameron's claim to have discovered the tomb of Jesus more than interesting. If it could be proven that he was right, that Jesus was buried in the ossuary featured in the upcoming Discovery Channel documentary rather than rising from his tomb on Easter Sunday, then the Christian faith would be proven false. Archaeologists are not bothered by the possibility--the expert who first found the tomb in question has already dismissed Cameron's assertion as a publicity stunt and says there's no legitimate possibility that the ossuary belonged to our Lord. Many of us already knew that. We knew that Jesus returned to physical life on Easter Sunday morning as the risen Lord. How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 That's where you lost me. How again does considering the possibility that Jesus was indeed found in a tomb make someone a gullible sucker? he's not "considering the possibility", he's arguing in favor of thesis fowarded by a movie director to make dough, and arguing to discredit the well-reasoned skepticism toward that thesis of essentially EVERY expert in the fields of archaeology, ancient history, new testament, etc. the fact that he wants to believe it so badly causes his gullibility to shine through like a beacon. skins is one dude whose enormous schtick is pretty f'n tough to hide behind the "hey, none of us really know, man...'truth' is an abstract concept anyway man" nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 God would be proud. :oldrolleyes: Roman Catholic Diocese Of San Diego Considers Bankruptcy Last Updated: 02-19-07 at 12:36PM The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego said in a letter to parishioners this weekend that it is considering declaring bankruptcy to avoid going to trial on more than 140 lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by priests. The pastoral statement, signed by Bishop Robert Brom, said if fair settlements can't be reached with abuse victims, "the diocese may be forced to file a Chapter 11 reorganization in bankruptcy court." The diocese is concerned "that settlements not cripple the ability of the Church to accomplish its mission and ministries," the letter said. The letter was included in the regular weekly bulletin handed out at services Saturday and Sunday. If the diocese files for bankruptcy, it would become the fifth in the nation to seek protection in the clergy sex abuse scandal. Under such bankruptcy, a court supervises the reorganization of the diocese's contractual and debt obligations. An attorney for the San Diego plaintiffs said the Chapter 11 filing "would be a sham and frivolous." "We don't know if the threat of bankruptcy is a ploy to try and get the plaintiffs to settle for less money or if it's a stonewalling tactic," attorney Andrea Leavitt said. "What the public needs to know is this is a very rich diocese with over 500 pieces of property and a lot of insurance." Brom was expected to further address the issue at a pre-Lent meeting Monday of nearly 300 priests in the diocese. The diocese includes about a million Catholics in San Diego and Imperial counties. There are 154 plaintiffs in San Diego County alleging priest abuse, Leavitt said. Brom, in his letter, wrote that 143 people had filed lawsuits against the diocese. The first case is set for trial in Superior Court on Feb. 28. Three other trials are scheduled to follow, involving multiple victims and allegations that the diocese protected abusive priests by moving them from parish to parish. A message left at the San Diego Diocese was not immediately returned Sunday night. Other diocese filing for bankruptcy are Portland, Ore.; Spokane, Wash.; Davenport, Iowa; and Tucson, Ariz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts