|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2007 : 08:44:29 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, Fil! Just as I predicted, the unsigned writer (Ham?) is falsely accusing "skeptics" of accepting the Jesus' bones idea.
It's also interesting that he's emphasized that Christianity stands or falls on the Resurrection myth, and gives chapter and verse to support the idea (1 Corinthians 15:14: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.") So he's betting the entire Christian farm on this one roll of the dice.
Note Ham says nothing about "evidence," yet instructs followers, "It's a doctrine all Christians must defend..." He simply tells his sheep to believe. That's really all he's got. Again, panic reveals the intellectual vacuum of faith.
There is absolutely no reason for them to panic, yet in doing so they show their paranoia, and even their lack of faith. Not to mention their unconcern with evidence.
I'm amazed at the gaping cracks that are being revealed by the apologists. To me, this was unexpected, but I guess it should be expected. It's like turning on a light in a bakery, and seeing a thousand cockroaches run for the nooks and crannies. Do I detect a hint of con-men in guilty panic of having their scam exposed?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/03/2007 09:02:07 |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/03/2007 : 09:06:03 [Permalink]
|
Indeed, indeed. The other day I read a post (comment at news site)to the effect (paraphrasing): "Jesus' family was dirt poor and he was executed as a criminal. No way would he have been interned in a 'family cave.'"
Sounds reasonable enough, given that the story essentially denies the Resurrection.
Heh, it all reminds me of the sheepshank Ham, et al, got in their skivvies over The da Vince Code.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 03/05/2007 : 04:14:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
I got a giggle out of this (from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388557/site/newsweek/):
"Hankins argues that Christianity is strongly rooted in historical fact, both in context and in the events that unfold in the Bible, and it is that historicity, he says, which separates the faith from what he calls, “other world religions that are based in myth.” "
Well I just watched the program and the Ted Koppel special afterword. Koppel had 30 minutes with the producers and scientists then 30 minutes with the producers and the theologians. Sure enough, one of the religious scholars made the ridiculous claim the program didn't meet her standard of evidence as if anything in the Bible did.
The producer was pretty reasonable claiming he was only putting out there what the researchers had come up with. Koppel did a good job pointing out specific misleading parts of the program. If only they had similar reviews of the other crap on the Discovery Channel.
The program that preceded the Jesus Tomb was a re-run of a Noah's flood/Epic of Gilgamesh account. That program was so full of nonsense it was almost unbearable. Did you know they discovered evidence of a "great flood" 5,000 years ago that flooded at least 3 cities in the Euphrates River basin? Wow! who would have guessed? 
One interesting aspect of having the two programs back to back was in the Noah's flood program, it wasn't a worldwide flood, they only took a few hundred animals, not the few million that would have been the case if two of each species were on the ark, the ark couldn't have been as big as in the Bible since it would have required steel to support the structure, Noah wasn't a grape farmer, he was a merchant, he just happened to have a big merchant boat rather than God telling him to build an ark, and he was a Sumerian rather than an Egyptian or whatever he is supposed to be in the Bible...BUT... all of that isn't supposed to 'challenge' Biblical text or belief. Au contraire, it supposedly is confirmation the Noah story is "based in fact".
But finding an ossuary with the name Jesus son of Joseph without any bones in it mind you, supposedly challenges the Christian faith.
If only these guys could see the irony in fussing over this particular overstretched conclusion and the fact nothing else in the Bible is exactly supported by any evidence either.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/05/2007 04:15:17 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 08:44:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Au contraire, it supposedly is confirmation the Noah story is "based in fact".
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is also based on fact. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
cactusmush
New Member
21 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 10:58:10 [Permalink]
|
"...there's supposed to be a big round stone out front". True so! I remember those images from Sunday School as well. However, I also childhood remember images from other works of creative fiction.
There was also a big round stone out front of the Flintstones bank vault. You know...the one that the bank manager kept having to push to and fro to accommodate Fred & Barny's and Wilma & Betty's competing deposits and withdraws (there were no ATMs in the Cenozoic era...but there were excellent Drive-In Ribs, zero-emission cars and Sabre-tooth house cats)... Anyhow James Cameron's bank manager is also going to get fatigued depositing all of the proceeds from his client's "documentary".
I think "the lost bank vault of the Flintstones" has a better ring to it (and as much historical authenticity) than "the lost tomb of Jesus".
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I'm not buying it. It doesn't look like the Jesus tomb I learned about in my Sunday School classes. There's supposed to be a big round stone out front. 
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 11:11:58 [Permalink]
|
B-gal wrote: quote:
But finding an ossuary with the name Jesus son of Joseph without any bones in it mind you, supposedly challenges the Christian faith.
Ah, but there are bones in it! (Or at least "bits of matter" or "human remains.") And those are, not to coin a phrase, the bones of contention.
From the Discovery Channel article:quote:
Jacobovici, director, producer and writer of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," and his team obtained two sets of samples from the ossuaries for DNA and chemical analysis. The first set consisted of bits of matter taken from the "Jesus Son of Joseph" and "Mariamene e Mara" ossuaries. The second set consisted of patina — a chemical film encrustation on one of the limestone boxes.
The human remains were analyzed by Carney Matheson, a scientist at the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada. Mitochondrial DNA examination determined the individual in the Jesus ossuary and the person in the ossuary linked to Mary Magdalene were not related.
But the ossuary didn't have "Yes, THAT Jesus" inscribed upon it, so there really is no evidence it's the Son of God's bones. If there was such evidence, it would wreck the bodily-resurrection myth, and gravely injure Christianity. That's why there's so much panic.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/05/2007 11:30:37 |
|
|
|
cactusmush
New Member
21 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 15:02:11 [Permalink]
|
I kind of agree with the previous post but "believers" will explain away whatever results nonetheless. That is what faith does...it equips individuals with the ability to continue to have faith in their God no matter the empirical evidence or lack thereof. There are and will be several types of Christian reaction to Cameron's "documentary". But, it is in error to assume that this documentary is anything more than a superficial threat to their faith.
Example: the Shroud of Turin; wherein the Church resisted scientific study to date the item for decades...then consented and when the material was dated to centuries after Christ...then church found sympathetic "scientists" who re-dated it to the time of Christ and/or have piled on a myriad of counterclaims against the original analysis and have now shut off access to the shroud...to prevent further analysis. At various stages of the shroud debate the various results lead to 3 conclusions for 3 types of thinkers.
Conclusion 1 (for the skeptic): "Aha...see still no evidence"
Conclusion 2 (for the believer for which such relics are vital to faith): "oh woe is me...there is no god after-all" {after which this person becomes a skeptic or very depressed or whatever)
Conclusion 3 (for the believer with some awareness in the history of the church) "ok...well forgeries/hoaxes of relics were common enough in the middle-ages...this one of the ways the various churches underpinned their finances {as they charged admission (i.e. indulgences) to view the relics}. Since my faith is not based on physical evidence or lack of and since I am aware of the historical nuances of the history of Christianity...my faith is not threatened by the shroud of Turin, James Cameron etc etc.
Conclusions 1 and 3 are far superior to conclusion 2. As a Skeptic I am interested in the rules of evidence (conclusion 1). As a person who is serious with their faith...they are best to educate themselves so that they are equipped to come to conclusion 3. ID (Intelligent Design) btw is actually a poor dogma for Christians to adopt because it can potentially lead to a conclusion 2 position.
This is why there is a logical and pragmatic argument in some churches (particularly the old-world churches) that ID is a bad position to adopt. This is because one's faith (if one has faith) should not be under-written by a contemporary pseudo-theory that punches well below its weight in the scientific community..even amongst scientists with faith. Some Christian parents and some churches understand that and dislike the ID movement accordingly.
What we skeptics need to understand is that strongly held faith is never threatened by science, logic and the rule of evidence...because of the very nature of faith. Cameron's documentary appalls many Churches not because it is rational threat to Christianity (since when does Hollywood produce anything rational or historically accurate anyhow) but because it belittles faith for the purpose of profit and media.
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
B-gal wrote: quote:
But finding an ossuary with the name Jesus son of Joseph without any bones in it mind you, supposedly challenges the Christian faith.
Ah, but there are bones in it! (Or at least "bits of matter" or "human remains.") And those are, not to coin a phrase, the bones of contention.
From the Discovery Channel article:quote:
Jacobovici, director, producer and writer of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," and his team obtained two sets of samples from the ossuaries for DNA and chemical analysis. The first set consisted of bits of matter taken from the "Jesus Son of Joseph" and "Mariamene e Mara" ossuaries. The second set consisted of patina — a chemical film encrustation on one of the limestone boxes.
The human remains were analyzed by Carney Matheson, a scientist at the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada. Mitochondrial DNA examination determined the individual in the Jesus ossuary and the person in the ossuary linked to Mary Magdalene were not related.
But the ossuary didn't have "Yes, THAT Jesus" inscribed upon it, so there really is no evidence it's the Son of God's bones. If there was such evidence, it would wreck the bodily-resurrection myth, and gravely injure Christianity. That's why there's so much panic.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 15:23:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by cactusmush
What we skeptics need to understand is that strongly held faith is never threatened by science, logic and the rule of evidence...because of the very nature of faith.
We also need to understand that faith like that is the most dangerous kind, and we should discourage it to whatever degree possible.
quote:
Conclusion 1 (for the skeptic): "Aha...see still no evidence"
Conclusion 2 (for the believer for which such relics are vital to faith): "oh woe is me...there is no god after-all" {after which this person becomes a skeptic or very depressed or whatever)
Conclusion 3 (for the believer with some awareness in the history of the church) "ok...well forgeries/hoaxes of relics were common enough in the middle-ages...this one of the ways the various churches underpinned their finances {as they charged admission (i.e. indulgences) to view the relics}. Since my faith is not based on physical evidence or lack of and since I am aware of the historical nuances of the history of Christianity...my faith is not threatened by the shroud of Turin, James Cameron etc etc.
Conclusions 1 and 3 are far superior to conclusion 2.
I don't see how you get that. Conclusion 2 uses evidence as the basis for belief. How isn't that superior to conclusion 3?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/05/2007 15:26:21 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 15:31:40 [Permalink]
|
Well, I see it overall like this:
1) No, this documentary is not a threat to Christian faith, though some Christians have panicked and are treating it as though it were.
2) Actually finding confirming the bones of Christ would be a serious blow to Christianity (1 Corinthians 15:14: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."), but it's unlikely that this will happen, especially the confirmation part. It's hard to even imagine how a real body of Jesus could be shown to be that of the Christian savior, particularly in the light of the fact we don't even know if he existed in the first place.
3) The panic reveals a good deal about some Christians and the real depths of their faith. They act as though science is threatening to destroy their dreams. They are right, of course.
The Shroud of Turin is of no real value to proving or disproving Christianity. It has always been flogged as a tourist attraction, and that's it's only real value. It's kind of hilarious how the Church has reacted, though.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/05/2007 20:14:18 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 15:44:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What we skeptics need to understand is that strongly held faith is never threatened by science, logic and the rule of evidence...because of the very nature of faith. Cameron's documentary appalls many Churches not because it is rational threat to Christianity (since when does Hollywood produce anything rational or historically accurate anyhow) but because it belittles faith for the purpose of profit and media.
Actually, any threat would be to the average believer, not the true believer. The average believer says "I saw it on the discovery channel, therefore it must be true." And in this case follows that with a question for the preacher. This is the whole point of apologetics. If one has a discrepency, any rationalization will do, but one must still be presented to end the anxiety over having to accept reality over the fantasy world. Enough of these and the person may jump ship to a new fantasy. No fantasy cult wants members to change fantasies mind you. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
cactusmush
New Member
21 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 18:41:56 [Permalink]
|
Your 1st point. Yes, I concur.. you are correct.
Your 2nd point...this was my error in communication which you note. My apologies. I meant superior as in a "survivable" or "self supportive" opinion...not superior in logic. What I mean is that the most indestructable form of religious faith simply dismisses historical or scientific values out of hand...including historical or scientific values that are co-opted and distorted to support Christianity (i.e Shroud of Turin or ID). The Fundamentalist who argue for formalized "equal-time" teaching of ID are actually eroding the survival of their own faith, but they are too daft to realize it. Cheers...
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by cactusmush
What we skeptics need to understand is that strongly held faith is never threatened by science, logic and the rule of evidence...because of the very nature of faith.
We also need to understand that faith like that is the most dangerous kind, and we should discourage it to whatever degree possible.
quote:
Conclusion 1 (for the skeptic): "Aha...see still no evidence"
Conclusion 2 (for the believer for which such relics are vital to faith): "oh woe is me...there is no god after-all" {after which this person becomes a skeptic or very depressed or whatever)
Conclusion 3 (for the believer with some awareness in the history of the church) "ok...well forgeries/hoaxes of relics were common enough in the middle-ages...this one of the ways the various churches underpinned their finances {as they charged admission (i.e. indulgences) to view the relics}. Since my faith is not based on physical evidence or lack of and since I am aware of the historical nuances of the history of Christianity...my faith is not threatened by the shroud of Turin, James Cameron etc etc.
Conclusions 1 and 3 are far superior to conclusion 2.
I don't see how you get that. Conclusion 2 uses evidence as the basis for belief. How isn't that superior to conclusion 3?
|
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 19:16:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
The Shroud of Turin is of no real value to proving or disproving Christianity. It has always been flogged as a tourist attraction, and that's it's only real value. It's kind of hilarious how the Church has reacted, though.
Especially since the Bishop of Turin at the time the shroud first appeared declared it to be a forgery and even claimed that forger confessed. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 19:36:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by cactusmush
Your 1st point. Yes, I concur.. you are correct.
Your 2nd point...this was my error in communication which you note. My apologies. I meant superior as in a "survivable" or "self supportive" opinion...not superior in logic. What I mean is that the most indestructable form of religious faith simply dismisses historical or scientific values out of hand...including historical or scientific values that are co-opted and distorted to support Christianity (i.e Shroud of Turin or ID). The Fundamentalist who argue for formalized "equal-time" teaching of ID are actually eroding the survival of their own faith, but they are too daft to realize it. Cheers...
Ok, thank you for the clarification, cactusmush.
And welcome to the SFN.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2007 : 03:16:07 [Permalink]
|
Yes, welcome cactusmush. I got a kick out of your Flinstones post.
Regarding the "stuff" in the two ossuaries, I didn't hear any evidence presented that it amounted to anything which could be definitively tied to the originally buried remains. The fact they glossed over that made me suspicious that the science wasn't very supportive. Remember, this was one of those programs where they could have presented the information in about 15 minutes but they stretched it out by frequent repetition (constant summarizing) and lead up questions you must wait for the commercial to hear the answer. It wasn't like they didn't have time to fit any more story in, especially if it was additional science.
There was a brief mention of bones when found in these tombs, being turned over to some agency for reburial. No mention was made that this tomb held any bones and since there had been an inventory it should have been noted but wasn't. The other ossuaries were described as "vacuumed clean" by the producers in the Koppel interview. It was a description of the absence of material in the boxes, not a description of any action that had been done. Nothing was said explaining why any material would be in some but not all the boxes.
And they said very little about what is typically found in the way of remains in ossuaries from the period and in the area of this tomb. I'm also curious if they actually confirmed they had human DNA as opposed to some plant or fungus. Did anyone notice if there was any discussion of that?
I might also note for those of you that missed the Koppel interview, the original researchers did log a 10th ossuary that is now missing, but it had NO inscription and that was noted by the researchers. The producers claimed it could have been inscribed but not noticed due to dirt covering. The researchers scoffed at that notion.
In the beginning of the film the producers had to retrieve the ossuaries from shelves in a warehouse. It did not appear the tomb contents were stored as a grouping. An uninscribed ossuary could have just as easily been misplaced in the warehouse as it could have been taken to later turn up for sale with the inscription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" on it. And an ossuary with no inscription could have been a perfect choice to take and inscribe your own. Wasn't there some question about the inscription on the James ossuary?
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/06/2007 03:19:29 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2007 : 03:29:32 [Permalink]
|
The Inscription on the James Ossuary
quote:
The inscription on the “James” ossuary is anomalous. First, it was written by two different people. Second, the scripts are from two different social strata. Third, the first script is a formal inscriptional cursive with added wedges; the second script is partly a commercial cursive and partly archaic cursive. Fourth, it has been gone over by two different carvers of two different levels of competence.
Placement of the Inscription
The inscription on the James ossuary is placed to the right hand side of the box, approximately one hand's span in width from the outside edge and roughly one-third of the height of the box in distance from the top of the box. Contrary to all other known ossuaries where little attention is paid to the placement of the inscription, here the placement is clearly carefully calculated, and the first part of the inscription is balanced in proportion to the overall size of the box. This careful balance has been disturbed by the second part of the inscription.
[snip]
Conclusion
If the entire inscription on the ossuary is genuine, then somebody has to explain why there are two hands, two different scripts, two different social strata, two different levels of execution, two different levels of literacy, and two different carvers. They could also explain where the frame has gone.
The ossuary itself is undoubtedly genuine; the well-executed and formal first part of the inscription is a holographic original by a literate (and wealthy) survivor of Jacob bar Yosef, probably sometime during the Herodian period. The second part of the inscription bears the hallmarks of a fraudulent later addition, probably around the 3rd or 4th centuries, and is questionable to say the least.
Interesting but having added script only a couple of hundred years after the original script sounds like it is accepted this wasn't a modern fraud.
With all this analysis available, one also has to notice the program spent no time discussing anything about the ossuary script from box to box in the tomb. Granted the years between deaths would have made for different people transcribing, but the link above has a lot more to say than just whose 'handwriting' they are looking at.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/06/2007 03:34:44 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Jesus' family tomb found?
