Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Discovery Video on supposed Jesus tomb (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Discovery Video on supposed Jesus tomb
Clark
Member
Member # 2727

 - posted      Profile for Clark   Email Clark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clarifications:
By "JKV" I clearly ment KJV, which is the King James Version. (Is this passage significantly different in any other translation?
By "ascention" I ment "Resurrection". Good catch on that one.

Here are some paintings of the resurrection, with those slumbering guards.

One by Matthias Grünewald Matthias Grünewald
One by Memling
Any my personal favorite, Pierro Della Francesca (I've always thought that was a pretty sickly looking Jesus. It looks like He's come back to life, but just barely. Not at all what I imagine in my head.)

Posts: 420 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hobesen, Pilate assigns them a watch, after they come begging for one. The verses above establish how they persuaded Pilate that it was important enough, for the sake of the empire's security, to keep down this cult whose leader they crucified. Yes, Legionaries were tough as hell.

"People do not generally watch tombs, as they assume the dead will stay within them."

Which has nothing to do with the facts of this case, where the Romans and Sadducees made no such assumption.

Sleeping to one side? No. For a roman soldier to fall asleep or abandon post while on watch would mean crucifixion. That's just the whole point, why Caiaphas had to bribe and protect the legionaries in order to get them to testify that they had failed in their duties. That's why their statement was so compelling, and why the disciples took such pains to contradict it.

Given the concerns that led them to protect the body in the first place, and what was at stake nationally and internationally, I think it's doubtful that the soldiers just went there and slept without checking to see the body was there.

Look, this is *not* a matter that I'd say determines whether someone is Christian or not. The important part is that Jesus came back. But the complete surprise on the part of Mary and the apostles on finding the tomb was empty makes your version seem very unlikely. It's not a critical doctrinal issue. I just think that the specific testimony of the resurrection was 90% of the purposes of the first three gospels -- in fact it was the original "good news" that gave us the word "gospel." I think that the disciplies seem particularly meticulous about the details, and while people can err, I don't think they'd skip a detail of that magnitude like the fact that they'd taken the body out and weren't really going back there to check on it.

I wasn't aware of the Gospel of Peter. Cool!

I'm sure you realize this, but for the sake of others, I spoke of three gospels because John's Gospel was written many Decades later, and probably after the writer had read the other three accounts.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, Pete, I messed up the story of the guards, who were in fact provided by Pilate. And my Internet died, so I got frustrated enough to go to the library to seek more information in The Interpreter's Bible, which covers Mark and Matthew in an oversized volume of about 500 pages. That said even conservative commentators usually dismissed the story of the guards as an early version of the legend in the Gospel of Peter; but that if there were any, they could have been either Jewish or Roman.

Mark says simply that Joseph of Arimathea laid the body in a tomb, rolled a rock across the entrance and departed, as observed by Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph. Luke adds the women then went home to prepare spices for embalming and later observe the Sabbath. John says Joseph of Arimathea was aided by Nicodemus, and that they embalmed the body at once; he does not mention any women, which does not mean they were not there.

So only Matthew mentions any guards, who did not fall asleep; they fainted when an angel appeared to roll back the stone after the Resurrection. But by that time Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were already at the tomb, and Jesus risen and gone; the angel had just opened the tomb so the women could see it was empty. So how or when Jesus left the tomb is unstated, but he met the women shortly after with a message for his disciples.

As you say, it does not seem to matter much what anyone believes about this. The Interpreter's Bible adds that early Christians did not much care about such details either, as they had met the risen Jesus himself. It seems we both agree on that. And I think I shall finish this post as we just got hit by the strongest earthquake since 1989, although I think all it did was to knock my lamp over. But it gave me a lot more sympathy for those guards.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Adam Masterman wrote:
According to my (admittedly pedestrian) familiarity with this myth/history/story, this isn't necessarily what we would expect. God didn't come down and have sex with Mary, he put a child in her belly. There is no reason to conclude that that child has any of Mary's DNA. Indeed, since Jesus is suppossedly God Himself, would he share any traits with the mortal Mary? Conversely, the child could be a genetic clone of Mary, sharing all of her DNA save for the Y-chromosome, since she was the only DNA-possessing parent (assuming that God doesn't have DNA).

Historical evidence suggests that the entire doctrine of the virgin birth was merely an embellishment to make the story of Jesus fit with what the authors of the gospels believed was the prophesy. The original text of Isaiah 7:14 used the Hebrew word almah, which means "young woman," but it was translated as parthenos or "virgin" for the Septuagint. source

So this speculation about God's DNA is just idle. Mary was just an unlucky teenage girl who got knocked up. It's really quite horrifying that such a simple error is responsible for creating one of the most recognizable myths in the world, a goddess in all but name that millions of people pray to.

[ March 05, 2007, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Adam Lassek ]

Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mormons do believe she was knocked up by the Man Himself, as hilariously, but stupidly illustrated in an animation I once saw in the movie that one dares not name.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mithrae
Member
Member # 3197

 - posted      Profile for Mithrae     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The story of the virgin birth is probably pagan in origin. The accounts of both Matthew and Luke contain elements from pagan myths, while there's no mention of a virgin birth in the earlier writings of Paul and Mark. Only Matthew mentions Isaiah 7:14; but as is frequently the case in his gospel, he's applying an unrelated passage as a 'prophecy' of the Christ, not misunderstanding it. Even in the Septuagint Isaiah 7 is clearly about the time of Ahaz, not a future Messiah.

Edit: The 'Jesus son of Joseph' and 'Judah son of Jesus' in the Talpiot tomb could be Christ's nephew and grand-nephew, if Jesus' brother Joseph (Mark 6:3) named a son after his famous brother. That's if it's the tomb of the holy family in the first place, of course.

[ March 05, 2007, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Mithrae ]

Posts: 71 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam Lassek, this quote will needlessly offend many Christians.
quote:
Mary was just an unlucky teenage girl who got knocked up.
In fact the historical evidence that Mary did anything other than become pregnant by her lawful spouse is just as weak as everything else about the story on which you cast doubt. The traditions about the birth of Jesus are more than thirty years older than the traditions about his death, and they happened to a family of unknowns rather than to at least a minor celebrity, so naturally they may be less historically accurate. So why defame a woman who is long dead?

[ March 05, 2007, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by canadian:
Mormons do believe she was knocked up by the Man Himself, as hilariously, but stupidly illustrated in an animation I once saw in the movie that one dares not name.

That's not true, Canadian. Mormons do not believe that crap. A few apostles speculated that 100 years ago, and the church rejected it. For one thing, it contradicts the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible. And no one's afraid to name that stupid movie "The Godmakers," or its maker, Ed Decker. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Decker
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@hobsen

You're probably right, I was being needlessly flip. On the other hand, I don't discuss religion with any more respect than I would with any other subject.
quote:
historical evidence that Mary did anything other than become pregnant by her lawful spouse is just as weak as everything else about the story on which you cast doubt.
Well, if you really want to go down that road the evidence that such people even existed in the first place is debatable.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An update to this story, for those who haven't been following it:

A CORRECTED READING OF RAHMANI OSSUARY 701
quote:
The so-called "Mariamene" ossuary contained the names and remains of two distinct individuals. The first name on the ossuary, “MARIAME.” was written in the common Greek documentary script of the period on the occasion of the interment of the bones of this woman. The second and third words “KAI MARA” were added sometime later by a second scribe, when the bones of the second woman Mara were added to the ossuary. This scribe's handwriting includes numerous cursive elements not exhibited by the first scribe who wrote “Mariame.” In view of the above, there is no longer any reason to be tempted to link this ossuary (nor the ambiguous traces of DNA inside) to Mary Magdalene or any other person in Biblical, non-Biblical or church tradition.
As with most scientific discoveries that go straight to the public without peer review, it appears to be bogus.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1