topal63 wrote:
[
EVieira], did you read the article?
From the article:... "It's a beautiful story but without any proof whatsoever," Professor Amos Kloner, who had published the findings of his research in the Israeli periodical Atigot in 1996, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa Friday.
"The names that are found on the tombs are names that are similar to the names of the family of Jesus," he conceded.
"But those were the most common names found among Jews in the first centuries BCE and CE"...
There is NO archaeological proof of Christ - period (NONE EXISTS or HAS EVER BEEN FOUND and WILL NEVER BE FOUND).
There is NO historical proof of Christ - period (excepting an errant attempt to interpolate chrestus; in Tacitus; and a known FORGERY inserted into Josephus's Antiquities... both which even if were TRUE; are not contemporaneous accounts; they would BE after the FACT hearsay).
The article and evidence demonstrate that someone (a nobody; an anybody; non-specific; unknown person) died... and that that person had a Jewish name. Nothing more.
Dezerteagal5 wrote:
topal63 wrote:
Did you read the article?
... "It's a beautiful story but without any proof whatsoever," Professor Amos Kloner, who had published the findings of his research in the Israeli periodical Atigot in 1996, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa Friday.
PIFFFF!!!!!!! The bible is a beautiful story but has even less proof!
What is the point of a quote (from the Article) utterly out of context... ?
Dezerteagal5 wrote:
You god-goers are .... blah fucking blah... /RANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What does your pointless RANT have to do with the ERRANT conclusions of the documentary contained in the article?
The documentary (in the article) is as DOPEY - as thinking "The DaVinci Code" (a fiction) - has historical merit. Jesus is shrouded in myth... all extrapolations thereof are just myth about myth... the documentary is nothing new - it is just more myth making.
From the article:..."translated into English - included the names "Jesus son of Joseph," twice "Maria," and "Judah son of Jesus."...
Jesus (Latin from the Greek) -
might be either the (Greek name mangle of the) Jewish Name:
Yehoshua or Yeshua... this is not even known with any certainty which name is the correct textural appellation namesake.
OOOOoooooo.... wait - lookey here! Oh my fucking God! It must be TRUE if ya thunk it...Jenspm wrote:
omfg Dezert.
Everyone knows that Jesus lived. Science can prove that. If you know what religion is, you would know that Christianity is based on believing that Jesus was God's son, Believing that God created the world. Science can't prove that Jesus was or was not God's son. Christianity is about believing.
Hey goofball... back up that ABSURD claim.
Jesus is a mythical character with no PROOF whatsoever (historical or archeological).Bertster7 wrote:
Proof is a word people throw around far too casually.
No doubt...
Vilham wrote:
CruZ4dR wrote:
Never. And compare to what DNA? There is none. It's all a matter of publicity and random theories.
Yeah but if lets say that piece of cloth with his blood on it (apparently true) matches exactly with the body they found.. the chances that infact the cloth just had some random guys blood on it and not jesus's and they happened to find this exact guys body.
Could you more incorrect in your assumption / strange argument / conclusion? Probably...
Fen321 wrote:
ncc6206 wrote:
Dezerteagal5 turn or burn boy. You cant hide behind ignorance on the day of Judgment.
Judgment is not coming...its meant to keep you walking along a never ending institutionalized sin production that is Christianity, and which you will NEVER be able to reach your so called leaders example. Think about it Christians personify Christ as a person whom we all fall short of...HOW THE HELL is anyone to live up to this if ..... we are different from him. To be honest I'm pretty sure we are all the same as him, hence you guessed it the next logical conclusion
An errant one...
That seems logical to you... but you are not like Christ... nor are you like Hercules... or Horus; or Osiris; or Mythra; or Orpheus; etc; etc; etc. Like implies similar. Like does not imply exactly the same - especially when considering the part that is utterly different. You are not like a myth. The symbolic relation of you to the myth... is the next logical step... so what is it then?
... hence you guessed it the next logical conclusion
No offense intended but go ahead & make the error; state it openly.
Jenspm wrote:
cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Actually I think the Energy was in the universe before the big bang. As we all know about physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred.
So where does this energy originaly come from?
Impossible to answer and prove it (as of today). Therefore we have religion.
No... are you trying to be obtuse? Religion is a reaction to life / death / etc - it is the psychology of a relationship of man to his value systems, traditions, the intangible, self, rites of passage, etc...
AND... actually, it is impossible to prove the source of an effect EVER. It always points to another effect and not the AFFECT-ing thing in-itself.
Knowledge of energy's existence is based upon effects; not the source of the effect. Consider as analogy the ripples on the surface of a body of water. DO NOT consider the medium - the water. Consider the ripples only. And, that you could hypothetically experience the effect of ripples without knowing that it is linked to water. (Water is not even the source of itself anyway). Energy is experienced like; as analogy the; rippling waves ; where the source of the effect (or ultimate source) cannot be determined. If you peel back a layer of the reality onion; it is another ripple; it is another effect and not the source. Even string-theory is NOT a T.O.E. (theory of everything); there is no single reason to assume the string is the source of effects we could theorize as a being a vibrating-string curled up in tiny spaces. Certainty in existence is never implied not in science; not ever.
.. Science is not a religious tradition rooted in myth and the psychological relationships contained therein.
NemeSiS-Factor wrote:
Dezerteagal5 wrote:
... its getting faster as it expands.
'Fraid not. It's slowing down.
D'oh! LOL... excellent retort! You need to re-check where you are getting that idea from:
NemeSiS-Factor.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
If that documentary doesn't have a T-1000 in there somewhere (Cameron's involved), I'm not interested. But I could claim to have discovered a cure for AIDS, and it wouldn't necessarily be undisputed truth.
For that matter, much of what is taught of Jesus' life probably isn't the complete truth either.
Oh, wow perfectly useless... non sequitur... inane... out of context (of the Article itself)...
Stingray24 wrote:
Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Untill the kids 'the believers' realize, moms not gunna spank me, shes all talk, but ive never gotten a spanking no matter what i do.
Now, the sooner you come to the conclusion that your 'mom' will NEVER actually spank you, then the sooner you can live a full, fun, life. To the limits of the law that is
Ah, so you've died and reviewed the afterlife, which enabled you to come to the conclusion that the "spanking" will never come? Interesting.
For anyone who is genuinely interested: everyone does not equal God and everyone is not going to Heaven. Read more in the book of Romans for further explanation.
That would be a mere
144,000 (heaven bound so-sealed individuals) unless you wiggle worm your way out of that nonsense - and then try an interpret the Bible - doh!
Anyways it's meaningless rhetoric... an utterly un-spiritual thing to say; atypical Christian-circular nonsense "it is in the Bible", invoking a un-spiritual non-living circular principle based upon the ramblings of a Jew from antiquity (Saul of Tarsus) who could not live by the Jewish Law - so conceived of an ethereal Christ that full-filled it, blah, blah, blah...
.
.
.
All that I can say is - I tried - to be logical... factual; cite historical references; stay in context to the Article... my bad... let the D & ST... continue.
By the way what does all this OTHER blather going on have to with the documentary mentioned in the actual article? Which has made an extraordinary claim - with absolutely no evidence supporting the claim.