4 ms·
I call complete bullshit. From having watched shows like NCS, we know the amount of direct evidence it takes to establish something like who was buried somewher
by british_india 10y ago
I call complete bullshit. From having watched shows like NCS, we know the amount of direct evidence it takes to establish something like who was buried somewhere.
Like the shroud of Turin this is just another example of wishful thinking. They found some random tomb that has survived and announced that it was the tomb of this fictional character Christ. No chain of custody for evidence, just the wishful thinking of somebody who wants it to be true, just like the entire resurrection theory. Complete and total hogwash.
If we were to say this is the burial site of Joseph the plumber, the proponents of this idea would have no evidence to argue otherwise.
- gadders 10y agoI'm an atheist, but I don't think Jesus was a fictional character.
- imaginenore 10y agoWhy? What evidence is there?
- Cthulhu_ 10y agoI wonder if it actually matters if he was real or not, or whether he did what the major religions claim he did. What matters is that billions of people believe it, and he's an example to billions of people, giving them a moral example to strive towards. You know, like superheroes in the US. They don't exist (which is factually verifiable still), but people are fans of them. What if in 2000 years people forget or lose the origins but the story of e.g. Star Wars is passed on through the ages? It's not proven to be real, but it provides a moral example, a distinction of good vs evil, and a code to live by.
- qbrass 10y agoNow repeat the history of religious wars except now you know everyone's killing each other over movie preferences.
- azernik 10y agoHistorical Jesus research is an interesting and deep subject. If you're interested, I'd recommend this lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_dOhg-Fpu0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_dOhg-Fpu0 Short version of the evidence is these two (rather thin) things: 1. The Biblical texts include many theologically inconvenient details. A purely fictional character would just not have been written with them. 2. A near-contemporary mention, before the rise of Christianity, in a source (Josephus) without an agenda in promoting Jesus's story. (This is complicated by the fact that later Christian redactors added in extra references with more theologically convenient bits.) This looks quite thin, but note that in this part of history sources are always hard to find - there are Roman emperors that we have much more tenuous direct evidence for! But it does mean that we can't really say much about this figure. EDIT: On re-viewing - note Dr. Martin's interesting philosophical cartwheels trying to not look (to himself even) like he's going against articles of Christian faith. EDIT 2: For the interested - skip to 27:00 after he's done hemming and hawing about theology vs. history and gets to actual information.
- PostOnce 10y agoAw shucks, you don't say? and here we all were thinking they'd irrefutably proved Christianity. there's still history to be learned and an interesting story to be told about life thousands of years ago regardless of its lack of real supernatural content. in other news Apple didn't revolutionize everything again with the touch bar, welcome to life :p
- PostOnce 10y agoJust because the headline is sensational doesn't mean there's nothing of merit in the body of the work.
- lostlogin 10y agoCiting what TV drama as an example of how hard it is to prove something seems an unusual way to argue a point.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Hondor 10y agoThe article consistently qualifies it like "According to Christian tradition". Only the title is inaccurate. It even mentions that they're interested in finding out "how it evolved as the focal point of veneration since ... A.D. 326." Jesus was buried 300 years after his death? It's pretty clear on the fact that Jesus's body didn't really get put there and that it's just a myth.